
Anyone who has arrived here to learn more about #boycottshutterstock, I think this article on insideimaging sums the greed up quite well
Founded in 2003 Shutterstock is the largest subscription based photo agency in the world. They now add well over 1 million images to their collection each week. Shutterstock has reached one of the top positions in the marketplace by being innovative: they were the first to offer subscription microstock, first microstock agency to offer video footage and the first of the big microstock agencies to crowdsource editorial images. In April 2013 Shutterstock reported selling two images every second, more than 250 million images since launch.
Good quality statistics always make me happy, how many people have viewed my portfolio, and any sites that don't allow me to see just how many people are online and browsing make me nervous (I admit some of the biggest sites don't need to do this - you know it's going to be a lot of people with them), but when other smaller sites don't provide full information, just a box with "you have made 0 sales" I tend to be suspicious. Shutter stock is a site that provides excellent stats for numbers munchers like me.
Sales at shutterstock have a definite bias towards recently uploaded images, and acceptance of more unusual subjects is high (shutterstock appear to be letting their technology and users decide if an image subject will sell rather than the feelings of a reviewer). If you can get accepted then it's a good place to start selling and see immediate sales. Sales do tend however to 'drop off' for older images in your portfolio.
The red carpet program (shutterstock login required for access) offers services to photographers who are looking for assistance in accessing events for editorial photography.
Important note about the 'cost of a standard credit'
Shutterstock is a subscription service and you get paid each time one of the subscribers downloads an image, the subscribers pay different amounts for different lengths of subscription, I've based my cost of $0.50 per credit on their one day, 25 image download limit for $49. This is not really a good comparison to the other sites which allows a single download.
The subscription system at one time placed shutterstock into a different market compared to the other microstock sites, although other sites have copied and now offer subscriptions (compare subscription microstock sites) shutterstock is still well in the lead in this market segment. Shuterstock is still microstock, but it's microstock aimed square-on at the design professional or design group, not Joe Bloggs and his three hours on Sunday afternoon webblog. From what I can see from my results it's a good market to serve. I also feel that people are slightly less careful about what they download if they have a subscription, as they have the freedom to download a small selection of images and try them out in a design without paying any more than if they just downloaded one final image. This process saves the designer collecting comp images and then going back to download the full sized image for the selected design and rework it all. (obviously the designer has limits on their accounts and can't afford to go over those limits so they will only download images that they think they really need).
This site has carved out a slightly different market segment, and is difficult to compare directly to the other sites, but after several years of sales I have seen good results placing the site a number two in my top ten list.
Price per image below is calculated from the 'On Demand Subscription', (5 images any time over 1 year for 49USD). Images are significantly cheaper if a regular subscription is taken. Shutterstock also own the smaller microstock agency bigstockphoto which allows them to concentrate on their core business of subscription microstock and also take a share of the 'pay as you go' market.
Shutterstocks image collection grew by 10 million images in the 6 months to August 2015. As of 2020 they have 300 million images.
Conclusion
Shutterstock have been top of the sales ranking since overtaking istockphoto in 2010. Earnings (2015) from shutterstock for me are 5x that of their nearest competitor - and not too far from being more than all other agencies combined. "SS" Should be top of your upload list.
Visit the shutterstock photographers area
Useful Shutterstock Links:
Shutterstock.com/explore/the-shot-list - Shutterstock monthly updated list of what is in demand
question
Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2008-11-08 06:25Proof of Identity
Steve Gibson on Tue, 2008-11-11 06:03I'm not sure which country you are from, but where I live, yes the banks do ask for your passport and/or several other forms of identity to prove you are who you say you are when you open an account, and they take a photocopy of it.
Most of the microstock sites which require ID will let you obfuscate details like your passport number if you are nervous of giving out this info, and most accept just a drivers license. If they did not do this then how would they guarantee to their customers that you were a genuine individual selling photos that you had shot instead of a villain who was stealing other photographers work?
Come and live in Australia, I need photo ID to go an buy a drink in a bar, and I'm 33!!!
Steve Gibson
Microstockinsider.com Editor
There's a difference between
Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 2009-01-16 21:03I agree. I applied to
Carol (not verified) on Fri, 2013-09-06 19:57Shutterstock is good
Anders (not verified) on Wed, 2009-03-11 21:05Giving Out Government Isuued ID
Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2009-04-23 05:58Possible
Steve Gibson on Thu, 2009-04-23 07:00Hacking is always possible (but unlikely), but that is why any secret or restricted government information on computer is only ever allowed on computers that are on a network that is physically isolated from any network that could be accessed from the Internet. If you work in such a place you have two machines on your desk, or work in separate offices for secret and non secret data
A couple of the agencies ask for scans of ID (and I don't like it either, the only way they get away with it is because they are two of the biggest). Most other online services either post something to your address, make an automated phone call or send/take money from your credit card or bank account to confirm your ID. I'm not sure why microstock has to be different.
I sent my drivers licence, and stamped the word duplicate across it in semi transparent text. Most forms of ID have copy protection devices built in, but this is more a point of identity theft than someone taking the scan and pretending to be you in person.
There would be far more personal data available if hackers broke into the computer of the bank that you use, and not all banks use things like digital certificates or tokens, some just have secure logins like the microstock sites.
Sending your photo I'd has no effect on the ownership of the images, they still belong to you. The sites ask for your ID to protect them against fraud, some people steal photos, upload them for sales then take the money they earn and disappear, this helps to make that rare.
Send your comments to their customer support, If enough people complain about it then perhaps they will use some other method for verificiation in the future
Shutterstock are tested daily by McAfee Secure, I trust them as to 1000's of others, so the choice is yours.
ID
Ph0neutria (not verified) on Sat, 2012-06-09 06:13ShutterJOKE.com
Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 2010-11-13 17:10I can see why that was an
Steve Gibson on Mon, 2010-11-15 00:19I can see why that was an anon comment!
ID verification is the only way an agency can find your true identity, they MUST do it to weed out those who steal the images of other photographers and try to sell them as their own to make profit. If you have nothing to hide then there is no problem with disclosing your ID. If you don't like it then use another site - you'll find that all of the major microstocks demand it.
I don't think race has any place in microstock, I'm not a US citizen either (but may as well be if you want to play a race card). Those comments about ethnocentric US might ring true for certain quarters of society I agree, but I'm fairly sure not from microstock. I doubt image reviews know anything more than your account nickname when they check your images. Most of the big agencies actively try to get themselves into markets outside the US by opening sales offices and multi-language support. You might argue that the whole world has become exploitative as it makes more sense for microstockers to work from a developing/semi developed country where costs are cheaper and sell to the US, but that's a big debate for another time.
ID for Shutterstock
Liz Milne (not verified) on Tue, 2012-06-12 12:51Contact Shutterstock
Steve Gibson on Thu, 2012-06-14 23:31Identification
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2011-03-22 15:29ShutterStock
zrmedia (not verified) on Mon, 2011-12-12 18:36Consistent sellers
Steve Gibson on Wed, 2011-12-14 23:12All i can say is they remain consistent top sellers for me (and a believe a lot of other contributors looking at some other sites/stats) you've chosen lot to let us all know what your portfolio consists of (vectors, illustrations, table top, models, landscapes etc) or it's size, so with little background info or evidence all I can do is take your comments with a pinch of salt - they just don't reflect anything else I have heard
Also lacking in credibility is the statement that nobody else asks for identity verification, I believe that all the major agencies have asked me for a scan of some kind either at registration or before initial payment. (or when such a policy is brought in then before the next payout).
Forums on agencies tend to be 'highly moderated'
Have a look at http://http://www.microstockgroup.com however they, like me, don't suffer dummy spitting and BS lightly.
Mr. Steve Gibson
Anonymous (not verified) on Tue, 2012-05-29 17:33Working for...
Steve Gibson on Wed, 2012-05-30 00:48I think you might be among a very select few who think that shutterstock is no good.
Is there something in the review that seems biased or unfair? I've written my editorial standards here plus a disclosue about referral programs, I do not get paid to write these reviews... and I have plenty of harh words to say about the sites that are no good.
+1After provided all the ID
Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 2012-10-03 19:03You all sound like a bunch of
Dave (not verified) on Tue, 2013-11-19 04:10Isn't it possible
Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 2014-01-16 04:28Shutterstock are assholes.
Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2016-04-24 13:10SS Rejections
Steve Gibson on Sat, 2016-05-07 00:21They do have some perplexing rejection resasons, and I think now (2016) they and envato are the only regular culprits in arbitrarily accepting all or almost none of a batch that I upload (usually all or most images accepted, but randomly most or all in a batch are rejected).
It's the human component of the review process that is the problem and the range of cameras: If you look at an image from a mid range camera and lens after looking at something high end from expensive glass and it will always look dreadful; but if you look at the same photo after looking at a sequence of awful images from a cheap camera then that photo it will look great!