Jump to content

looks like blackbox global pulled its videos from shutter stock


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yeah!!!

Many large contributors stopped licensing their images/vectors/footage with Shutterstock earlier this year when the new earning structure was announced. Now that it's coming to the end of the year,

Because a lot of people are lazy.  Simple as that.

1 hour ago, Former_Poster said:

If you use a service like them you need to realise you are no longer in control of your content or commissions on any site.  The actions of any number of others, unknown to you can have a direct effect on your income.

Absolutely correct.  And if they do clear it up, this will happen again in the future.  A competitor can take them down at anytime by submitting footage under an alias, and then complaining to SS later.  Their platform is based on a house of cards.  It ain't worth 15% and all the hassle just so someone can FTP your clips for you to multiple sites after you've already FTP'd them once anyway. i don't get the attraction.  There is almost no value added.

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

Absolutely correct.  And if they do clear it up, this will happen again in the future.  A competitor can take them down at anytime by submitting footage under an alias, and then complaining to SS later.  Their platform is based on a house of cards.  It ain't worth 15% and all the hassle just so someone can FTP your clips for you to multiple sites after you've already FTP'd them once anyway. i don't get the attraction.  There is almost no value added.

well there are more upsides than just not having to copy paste the meta data every where, like for example  I share revenue with some one that helps me shoot the clips, you can easily share your revenue with several parties if you have to.
BB is great for collaborations.
I do think they should have a lower fee than 15% maybe around the 5-7% would be better, but I think with time and size that may come.

then again I think SS should have a way lower fee them taking between 85-60% is a joke, also no single creator can hit their 40% share so realistically its more like 85%-75% for SS which is a slap in the face to creators. 

lets remember YouTube take 49% from creators. 
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, makesushi1 said:

well there are more upsides than just not having to copy paste the meta data every where, like for example  I share revenue with some one that helps me shoot the clips.
 

Thank you.  In one sentence you have proven my earlier point about who is attracted to 3rd party services.  First, If you are pasting and copying, you are ignorant as to how to use spreadsheets and other tools to automate your submission process.   And if you are farming out your metadata, you are unwilling to put in the necessary work to do it yourself.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Doug Jensen said:

Thank you.  In one sentence you have proven my earlier point about who is attracted to 3rd party services.  First, If you are pasting and copying, you are ignorant as to how to use spreadsheets and other tools to automate your submission process.   And if you are farming out your metadata, you are unwilling to put in the necessary work to do it yourself.

 

I'm not farming out meta data, I physically shoot with someone , and we just share the rewards.
also stock is not my main income YouTube is, although I probably make better stock videos than 99% of people on SS

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, makesushi1 said:

then again I think SS should have a way lower fee them taking between 85-60% is a joke, also no single creator can hit their 40% share so realistically its more like 85%-75% for SS which is a slap in the face to creators.

You have no clue what it takes to run a business.  Creating the footage is the easy part. It is the cost of customer acquisition, storage space, bandwidth, fulfillment, transaction processing, handling image approvals, dealing with customer service, dealing with contributors, marketing, advertising, employee benefits, office expenses, legal,  etc. where the costs are enormous to play in this field.

Why don't you go to Google Adwords and see how much you will have to pay to have your website pop up when a customer searches for anything with the word "stock footage" in it.

If you think you can do it better, start a stock footage agency and show us. Perhaps I will even sign up as a contributor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, makesushi1 said:

I'm not farming out meta data, I'm physically shoot with someone , and we just share the rewards.
also stock is not my main income YouTube is, although I probably make better stock videos than 99% of people on SS

Sorry if I misunderstood your earlier post and you are doing your own metadata.  But nevertheless, you're copying and pasting metadata by hand.  Is it really worth giving up 15% of your income because you can't master the use of a spreadsheet?  If it is true that you make more money here from stock videos than 99% of the people at SS you must be throwing hundreds of dollars down the toilet (15%) every month.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, makesushi1 said:

I said I make better videos than most people on SS not more money

When it comes to stock footage, "better"  is determined by sales volume and nothing else.  Lighting, color, subject matter, or whatever you think makes your videos better than the next guys is irrelevant.  It is all about sales.  A grainy black and white Super8mm transfer that earns $1000 is better than a cinematic masterpiece that earns $10.    If you don't understand that, see my previous post.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, makesushi1 said:

so in your view if someone is not submitting with spread sheets to track their stock videos they have no understanding of business... ok then 🤣

If the alternative is copying and pasting from one agency to another, as you seemed to say you do, then the answer is yes, that person has no clue how to make money in stock footage efficiently.  And in that case, yes a 3rd party submission service starts to look appealing.  That is where the ignorance comes in. 

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

When it comes to stock footage, "better"  is determined by sales volume and nothing else.  Lighting, color, subject matter, or whatever you think makes your videos better than the next guys is irrelevant.  It is all about sales.  A grainy black and white Super8mm transfer that earns $1000 is better than a cinematic masterpiece that earns $10.    If you don't understand that, see my previous post.

been looking through your portfolio you really go for quantity not quality...  https://www.shutterstock.com/es/video/clip-1047997552-roatan-honduras-circa-feb-2020-two-large 

https://www.shutterstock.com/es/video/clip-1049024497-wave-crashes-down-slow-motion-breaks-onshore

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, makesushi1 said:

been looking through your portfolio you really go for quantity not quality...  https://www.shutterstock.com/es/video/clip-1047997552-roatan-honduras-circa-feb-2020-two-large

 

Ha, ha, that is not one of my finer clips.  You got me on that one. But it already sold five times.  Just kidding, it has never sold but it might someday so why not post it?  Only a moron wouldn't submit something they already have in the can and that might have a chance of selling.  I have even worse clips that have done very well, but I guess I should remove them because they aren't good enough for your high standards.

I guess attacking specific clips in my portfolio is your last gasp effort to show me that I'm wrong. I figured it would come to that when your arguments ran out of steam. You better stop posting and get back to copying and pasting. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

 Only a moron wouldn't submit something they already have in the can and that might have a chance of selling.

I feel like it is moronic to waste time rendering, uploading, titling, tagging something that will frankly never sell.
all jokes aside I would recommend you work on your quality and don't waste time on things you know will not do anything.
its actually quite hypocritical you wasting time on terrible footage while claiming I don't know how to be efficient submitting stock and I'm lazy for not using spread sheets.
I would say wasting time on terrible clips is probably worse than spending 15% so you can focus more on creating better quality content.

just for reference this is one of mine, https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/item/131848904-moving-macro-view-passing-through-fast-food-burgers-fries-on 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2020 at 2:07 PM, makesushi1 said:

does any one have any info on this, I just saw that all my blackbox videos disappeared from SS, did they remove it because of SS low payments for videos
 

No, and no to the leading subject, "looks like blackbox global pulled its videos from shutter stock"

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Doug Jensen said:

Thank you for the advice. I will do my best to improve my shooting skills.  How much has your hamburger earned? And how much time did it take to setup and shoot?

it was doing quite well, I shot it pretty recently during covid lock in, and before SS removed BB it was on the first page for the search term "burger" which has insane levels of competition.
set up was pretty quick since I have a small studio setup permanently ready to go for this kind of stuff and that was actually my lunch that arrived by delivery. 

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...