Jump to content
Aspen Photo

How to deactivate your images

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, john sklba said:

So what happens to these images and video once the licensing is turned off?

They sit, unsold and unavailable to the public or the contributor, until they are opted in again.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Studio 2 said:

They go on holiday to the Caribbean and drink cocktails on the beach ūüćĻūüĆīūüćł

I'm really, really bummed about all of this, because my underwater shots, especially my manatee pictures, were doing well.  But I'm certainly not going to give them away for 10 cents a piece.  That's just criminally insane.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies if someone has already posted this - Petition here and already at 1,330 signatures after 12 hours

 ...https://www.change.org/p/shutterstock-object-to-the-decline-in-shutterstock-s-contributor-earnings

All the best to you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the point in deactivating. Why not just start deleting? I've already removed over 1,000 images. Mostly old and never downloaded anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sharon Day said:

I don't get the point in deactivating. Why not just start deleting? I've already removed over 1,000 images. Mostly old and never downloaded anyway.

If SS ever comes to its senses and reverses or revises this farce, opting out simply means opting back in.  Your media stays on the server but is not accessible by anyone.  It is not licensed for sale, but can be brought back should you change your mind, by clicking a single button.

Deleting images means you have to re-load and have them reviewed again, should the situation change.  

But there's a bonus to keeping your images on the servers but not for sale: SS has to maintain those servers whether the media on them is for sale or not.  So not only are they not making money for media not on sale, but they're paying to store it, too.  It's a two-edged sword that - if enough people use it - will put further downward pressure on corporate earnings.  

Deleting images is surrender.  Opting out of selling them is subversive.  IMHO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Phil Lowe said:

If SS ever comes to its senses and reverses or revises this farce, opting out simply means opting back in.  Your media stays on the server but is not accessible by anyone.  It is not licensed for sale, but can be brought back should you change your mind, by clicking a single button.

Deleting images means you have to re-load and have them reviewed again, should the situation change.  

But there's a bonus to keeping your images on the servers but not for sale: SS has to maintain those servers whether the media on them is for sale or not.  So not only are they not making money for media not on sale, but they're paying to store it, too.  It's a two-edged sword that - if enough people use it - will put further downward pressure on corporate earnings.  

Deleting images is surrender.  Opting out of selling them is subversive.  IMHO.

 

Thanks Phil. I had many old old images. I don't plan to delete everything, yet. I'll start over if they come to their senses. I do not see that happening. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Sharon Day said:

Thanks Phil. I had many old old images. I don't plan to delete everything, yet. I'll start over if they come to their senses. I do not see that happening. 

Unfortunately, neither do I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, MSPhotographic said:

Your work is extremely good and difficult to produce.  No one should be able to license your clips for what SS is letting them go for with some of these 60 cent $1.50 deals in the first place.  Full price for them is a bargain.  And for them to add insult to injury is too much

Thanks ..... I got another email today on my complaint and the announcement to pull off my portfolio ...they don't care ...just good I am also working with other platforms ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2020 at 2:41 PM, MSPhotographic said:

Adobe is currently the only agency trying to hold the line against the race to the bottom and i hope it takes over the market soon.  The way things are going at SS they will soon be asking us to PAY to submit content.

I have wondered if the next step is to pay to have a portfolio or gallery to sell here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Scorsby said:

Following news of the delay in switching your port off ive done it today for images and clips. And lowered payout to minimum. I'll have my money now thanks. Any new stuff will go elsewhere until sense is restored. 

All right, but where to?? Presently I have ports also at DT, AS, iS and Alamy. at DT I have not even reached the 1st payout yet (a few bucks short) with a bigger portfolio than my SS port. iS usually brings in half of what SS used to. Alamy never sold a single photo for me out of a 400+ port! AS does sell some, but nothing to write home about. Though they pay roughly a $1+ an image. So not great choices out there really and I think SS knows this too that they still conduct the biggest traffic. Not for long I am afraid if they go down this path to Oblivion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Blue Corner Studio said:

All right, but where to?? Presently I have ports also at DT, AS, iS and Alamy. at DT I have not even reached the 1st payout yet (a few bucks short) with a bigger portfolio than my SS port. iS usually brings in half of what SS used to. Alamy never sold a single photo for me out of a 400+ port! AS does sell some, but nothing to write home about. Though they pay roughly a $1+ an image. So not great choices out there really and I think SS knows this too that they still conduct the biggest traffic. Not for long I am afraid if they go down this path to Oblivion.

I can only choose for myself. You must make your own choices. But no notice of this was given. No consultation. 

It concerns me when people say SS is a company who can do whatever they wish with their company. 

What company. Without photos from us there is no company. They dontbsell cakes as well. So they need to realise we dont work for them.

They actually work for us on our behalf and we pay them handsomely for that service. We dont now need to pay them double for less service. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Scorsby said:

I can only choose for myself. You must make your own choices. But no notice of this was given. No consultation. 

It concerns me when people say SS is a company who can do whatever they wish with their company. 

What company. Without photos from us there is no company. They dontbsell cakes as well. So they need to realise we dont work for them.

They actually work for us on our behalf and we pay them handsomely for that service. We dont now need to pay them double for less service. 

 

Oh! Just to be clear, I am not suggesting fir anyone to stick around and eat ....! I am just as outraged as most people here voicing their anger and displeasure (to put it mildly). Just wondering (kinda' talking to myself) where to concentrate my efforts from here on. that's all. Perhaps AS. Though not sure.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm glad this happened.  It will give me the "kick in the pants" I need to move on from this business model.  Traditional photographers who saw their incomes undercut by the rise of micro stock warned that we would be exploited...and we are.  In the ten years I've been a member of SS (yes, I had to get 7 out of 10 images past review before being granted entry), the voice in the back of my head kept saying, "Why are you spending so much time doing something that will never adequately compensate you for the effort."  Now that effort will generate even less compensation.  Time to face reality and redirect where my future efforts will go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sharon Day said:

I have wondered if the next step is to pay to have a portfolio or gallery to sell here. 

They certainly can't cut commissions much lower, can they?  I had 3 video sales roll in today at 60 cents....  sheesh, how can you get cheaper than that... and now they are cutting it even lower.  

Share this post


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

They certainly can't cut commissions much lower, can they? 

They could certainly try. They may even lower commissions even further in the future. I know they stated that 0.10c will be the lowest price paid for subs. But they could change that later down the track. IS sometimes pays 0.4c, 0.2c and sometimes even lower than that for photos. We might even start seeing the same thing here one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard is certainly getting about. 

https://petapixel.com/2020/05/27/shutterstock-unveiled-a-new-royalty-structure-and-photographers-are-furious/

In the comments section of this article Richard clearly explains that the knock back in January isnt the only issue. As many of us realise the cheap deals always being offered for video and photos mean the purchaser pays less ..... and as we will now be getting a percentage of that .... we get less as well. 

Another ....

https://www.insideimaging.com.au/2020/pay-cut-for-shutterstock-photographers/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well and there is always a constant demand, ...not depending on actualities so much, ...but they don't care, ...it is like fast food .... don't expect personal treatment ;O)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then this. Dreamstime sent this via email to contributors today:

 

As of June, all contributors will receive a 10% increase in royalties value. We believe in helping and caring for each other during these trying times.

 

Nice gesture. Sure they are aware of the uproar caused by Shuttersuck - but I do appreciate the thought and attempt to differentiate from the abuse by Shuttersuck

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 6:49 AM, Phil Lowe said:

No sooner was my video port gone here, I made this sale at Adobe...

700_F_165834959_KPsNJ3xv8UqAJWFf2aR8OCP1

https://stock.adobe.com/video/beautiful-male-house-finch-eats-at-a-backyard-bird-feeder/165834959?prev_url=detail

There is life after Shutterstock after all.  :)

Phil, great bird footage. Nicely shot. 

I also took note of your German Shepard images before you disabled your photo port. Great looking dog. I'd really like to get a German Shepard myself one day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/27/2020 at 4:50 PM, Studio 2 said:

They go on holiday to the Caribbean and drink cocktails on the beach ūüćĻūüĆīūüćł

(bowing) You win. Well played :)

Share this post


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...