Thank you for the links to the royalty information. I was looking everywhere on the Adobe Stock site for this and couldn't fine it. I wish it was more readily noticeable on the front page of the site. I understand the sales concept and the different tiers of payments and downloads now. But for what it is worth, I think photographers should be paid more with at least .99 as a minimum commission regardless of the subscription option a buyer purchases. To sell an image for 25 cents to me is disrespectful to the hard work photographers put into their craft to make an image acceptable for a Stock Agency to approve. This is of course only feedback. I've was a photographer in the military for 25 years and in retirement figured I could make a few bucks in the photo stock market. I didn't think it would end up being loose change. There are many photography blogs online discrediting Adobe for the low commissions and thousands of comments discouraging photographers from contributing because of your poor commissions. I am sure your department is aware of these. Hopefully, Adobe Stock will reassess their commissions to photographers, raising them to a fare rate, and drawing more quality images from outstanding photographers into their photo pool. Respectfully, Wayne S. Grazio, LT, USN, retired www.flickr.com/fotograzio On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 11:19 AM, MatHayward <forums_noreply@adobe.com>
... View more