Jump to content

Thread for those who have closed or halted accounts


Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, Shelly Still Photographer said:

It’s now been 10 hours since I disabled my account and still 11,000 images are up on their site. Just wondering if anyone’s profile has full disappeared from this and how long it took? No sales reported since I pressed the no button. They are probably still selling and pocketing the money now. 

In your case it's a bit different. I still can find an image of yours when searching by the number (e.g. 1403539592) at www.shutterstock.com

But I can't buy it. "There was an issue...". Here is the screenshot.

 

 

Bildschirmfoto 2020-06-03 um 10.40.55.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just got my first 10 cents sale. Years working through the ranks for this. I'm not closing it down completely, just disabling sales period. Should they revert these greedy changes, I'll activate the s

So I just recieved my first 0.10 USD sale and halted my account, until SS comes back to mind... or forever.  It seems it would be cool to see how many of us are ready to go this way. This is thre

As I wrote elsewhere... it's not going to hurt SS in their pocket, even when thousands of contributors disable their portfolio. Write a review on Trustpilot to make potential customers aware. It's

Posted Images

9 minutes ago, Gtranquillity said:

Interesting you're mentioning this as I was surprised having had no new sales while my work is still showing up for sale, in the search as well. I hit the button after seeing 29 sales coming in the first full day and nothing after that. I think your lucky guess is correct and they are selling just not reporting it anymore. More cash for SS

Well, if that's the case we should catch it somehow... Maybe even by organizing a purchase through someone - and if he still can buy a photo and then we don't recieve any royalty, then we have a basis for a collective action in court, suing SS for fraud and theft and asking for huge compensations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, miliusx said:

This morning: My image portfolio 0 pictures, I thought I just disabled licencing, and I wanted to delete and edit some picturess too, but they are not there? 

They cannot be available to prevent purchases, so indeed, if you disabled the licensing, you disabled your portfolio

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ikars said:

Well, if that's the case we should catch it somehow... Maybe even by organizing a purchase through someone - and if he still can buy a photo and then we don't recieve any royalty, then we have a basis for a collective action in court, suing SS for fraud and theft and asking for huge compensations.

I was thinking of using the 1 month free trail option for this. It's not going to cost me anything and since it will be two different accounts and I purchase my own image (if I am still able to get to it through Google and purchase it) then I will easily be able to see if the sale shows up in my stats.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just want to share here the comment I wrotte in an other thread:

 

"

I have seen that now you only get 10 cents per each photo download... May be shutterstock wants to expel people who cannot have a huge production capacity, and thus stay with the agencies that are capable of producing hundreds or thousands of photographs every week without to much quality problems/risk, thus being able to do without the staff of reviewers and other internal staff...

I am unaware what financial problems shutterstock has, but I think the new percentages of earnings are usurious, as well as the reset system every fiscal year. I understand that they have to pay servers, personnel, marketing, etc., but come one, 15% 20% 25%...? Level 1 should be 25 % at least.

Edit:

Oh, and I wanted to add that, if society moves towards a new normality, it asks for respect, it asks for justice, it asks companies for responsibility, and shutterstock is a company that is intimately linked to society, as it provides content for it, shutterstock should apply the story, and begin to distribute the benefits more fairly. It is called corporate social responsibility. Probably some will come to me with the tune of the free market, I tell you that freedom is inherent in responsibility. It is not responsible to pay 25% to collaborators.

"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys, wake up !!! These are setting up a huge scam and it is difficult to defend yourself in the maze of electronics. Who knows where our files are stored and who knows what tours around the world they do when they are sold !! SS will have protected itself not to be in possession of the files. They will have coverage.
But is it possible that they are so criminal? ... I honestly don't know what to think.
SS definitely reads these posts and, if they have a clear conscience, they should intervene to calm the contributors and clarify all their doubts .... It cannot be true that they are so subtle and mean ...
But who is the CEO? Diabolik?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think we need to take a calm approach. The answers to some questions that have seemingly been ignored can be found on page 1 of the initial post by @Kate Shutterstock in the announcements section of the forum. It's by no means definitive but some questions have been answered officially here

As @miliusx has already noted. If you opt out of licenses, in effect disable your portfolio your collections will be held on the server but will not be available to view. This includes catalogue manager. So you will not be able to edit, copy keywords or delete images. Worth noting. 

Additionally if you wish to do that after you have disabled your portfolio you may be able to do it but if you attempt to then disable your portfolio again shortly afterwards you will not be able to. You will get a message to alert you that you have attempted to change your options in too shirt a time period. "You have made too many changes in a short space of time" and you get a time out. When that resets I am not sure.

If you disable your portfolio and then image counter states zero ... and you re-enable your portfolio you will start to see your images/videos return slowly a few at a time. At least 24 hours after you opt back in. That time period may become longer as more people disable their ports.

Good luck everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About Class Action, read this extract from the contract with SS.
They thought of everything ....
In my part it is said: who has it in the ass, has it in the ass ...

Par. 5 - PART V - ADDITIONAL TERMS

YOU AND SHUTTERSTOCK AGREE THAT EACH MAY BRING CLAIMS AGAINST THE OTHER ONLY IN YOUR OR ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT AS A PLAINTIFF OR CLASS MEMBER IN ANY PURPORTED CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION. Unless both you and Shutterstock agree, no arbitrator or judge may consolidate more than one person’s claims or otherwise preside over any form of a representative or class proceeding. The arbitrator may award injunctive relief only in favor of the individual party seeking relief and only to the extent necessary to provide relief warranted by that party’s individual claim. You and Shutterstock acknowledge and agree that we are each waiving the right to a trial by jury as to all arbitrable disputes under this TOS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, D. Ribeiro said:

Just got my first 10 cents sale. Years working through the ranks for this. I'm not closing it down completely, just disabling sales period. Should they revert these greedy changes, I'll activate the sales again. Until then, not giving away work for free.

After 13 years I've done the same. I will not be cheapened this way. I'm with most of the other stocks anyway so I'll still make money 💰 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to give SS a chance again.
Tonight I send my latest shots for review.
For the description and keywords I still have to think about it.
For the commission in case of sale, even a single cent is fine.
I'm not bad !!!
I hope focus and noise are ok !!
The first shot photographs a manager (perhaps the CEO, but I don't know why he is masked, taken at 11.55 pm on May 31st.
The second is a selfie by the SS board on the morning of June 1st.
The third is an employee for the payment of new commissions: he is masked because he is ashamed.
Great scoop, right?
With these I become rich !!!

IMG_2273.JPG

IMG_2274.JPG

IMG_2275.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Shelly Still Photographer said:

It’s now been 10 hours since I disabled my account and still 11,000 images are up on their site. Just wondering if anyone’s profile has full disappeared from this and how long it took? No sales reported since I pressed the no button. They are probably still selling and pocketing the money now. 

 

8 hours ago, Gtranquillity said:

Interesting you're mentioning this as I was surprised having had no new sales while my work is still showing up for sale, in the search as well. I hit the button after seeing 29 sales coming in the first full day and nothing after that. I think your lucky guess is correct and they are selling just not reporting it anymore. More cash for SS

 

7 hours ago, Ikars said:

Well, if that's the case we should catch it somehow... Maybe even by organizing a purchase through someone - and if he still can buy a photo and then we don't recieve any royalty, then we have a basis for a collective action in court, suing SS for fraud and theft and asking for huge compensations.

Ok, so in the backend it now shows 0 images. However, when I click on "portfolio" I still get to see 193 images. Then when I click on one of them, I can get to the product page showing just this particular image, so I can still purchase it.

I was going to use the free trail to set up a buyer account and see if the sale would show up, as I got 29 sales the first 24 hours after the change went live and nothing after I switched the license agreement to NO for both images and videos. In itself it's good they are no longer selling my work once I set it to no, if it weren't for the fact my images were (and are) still showing up for sale. And of course, people with images in their lightboxes have a direct link and these images can be purchased, identical to when the find it on Google, Bing, etc.

So just when I was about to set up my buyer account and give it a try, I realized that this is a FREE trail and buyers get to keep the 10 images they download if they end the free trail before the end of the month. https://www.shutterstock.com/discover/10-free-stock-images

So, since we are now being payed based on what the buyer paid (in this case nothing), SS is giving our work away for free so this obviously will not show up in my stats.

Anyone got sales after setting the licenses to NO?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm bumping this topic in hopes someone will reply to my previous post, asking if anyone had any sales after setting the license options to no, since even now, days after I've done this, my files can still be purchased through my portfolio, google and images saved in lightboxes, but I did not get a single DL showing in my statistics since I switched the licensing options to NO, which does not make sense (I got 29 DL's in the first 24 hrs after they switched to the new earnings structure, just for referrence)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gtranquillity said:

I'm bumping this topic in hopes someone will reply to my previous post, asking if anyone had any sales after setting the license options to no, since even now, days after I've done this, my files can still be purchased through my portfolio, google and images saved in lightboxes, but I did not get a single DL showing in my statistics since I switched the licensing options to NO, which does not make sense (I got 29 DL's in the first 24 hrs after they switched to the new earnings structure, just for referrence)

I just checked, you have 0 images in your port and none of you images on Google can be downloaded. Clean your cache and try again.

The only place I can see you images is in the "show me threads".

Link to post
Share on other sites

The decision to lower compensation to these levels is shameful and there is no doubt about this.
But I note that there are many contributor posts that seem to be really dependent on the income of microstocks. It seems to me, however, that many have not huge PF, only few exceed 4/5000 images, with gains that I assume can be aligned with what I have with 7000 files. With these numbers this should be considered more of a hobby than a real job. A hobby that allows you to pay for some accessories, maybe a lens or a subscription to a magazine or Photoshop.
But do so many people really consider working with SS as a real job? But above all so many people consider themselves "professional photographers"?
I know there are real companies with employees who work for microstock agencies and I imagine they have tens or hundreds of thousands of images filed: these great contributors are not seen in the forums.
And then can it not be that SS, with this move, wants, with more or less right reason, to get rid of photographers who consider themselves professionals without being so?
So the problem that SS has is that of freeing storage spaces from bad, poor, uninteresting and repetitive shots.
These cuts in earnings would be far more devastating for those who do it for main work than for those who make us $ 30 or 40 a month. Are there different economic treatments? I would not exclude it and therefore there would be a logic.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it doesn't seem the company will respond or reply, I'm deleting my library of 200 new 4K/6K clips I had begun to build on Shutterstock and moving to Adobe and Pond 5 and others. Too bad about the royalties -- I won't sell myself short.  If you're a professional and not living for free or trying to make a name for yourself, it's hard to justify all the work and cost for such a lopsided partnership.

Bye Shutterstock.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2020 at 8:41 PM, Elliott Cowand Jr said:

Shutterstock's possible future tactic to counteract contributors who have disabled their photos could be to charge an annual "hosting/storage fee" for using their servers.

Let them try it : ). See how far that takes them! I can count probably on one hand how many such contributors are who are willing to pay for "hosting"!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition to a few $.10 image sales, I just got an $11.85 video cart sale:  

https://www.shutterstock.com/video/clip-1029992876-pompano-beach-florida--usa---may

A few more high-priced sales like this and my income will not be affected at all by the new commission structure, might actually be more money than I was making before the commission change. 

I will NOT be disabling my port--I put too much time and effort into creating it and building it up.  I WILL just stop contributing for awhile, wait and see how this new commission structure plays out in income.

This $11.85 video cart sale would've probably been a $20+ video cart sale under the old system, but this clip that just sold had previously not sold at all, so maybe SS' marketing efforts have improved, or a customer simply finally found a need for this clip.  Either way, no complaints here so far since this commission structure change.

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...