|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - goober
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
1
« on: October 09, 2023, 23:43 »
After 12 years selling and 9 years full-time producing stock art I'm totally out. Deleted my last image this week.
Last week I got my mower serviced for $580. 2hrs labour and parts. It would take hundreds of sales of stock images to pay for that service and the people buying the art use it for years. They should be paying $40 to use it for 10 years and we should get at least 40% of the sale.
Opaque agencies sell art for a dollar and give the artist a few cents. Taking portfolio rights and training their AI systems without consultation. It's the most ridiculous business now. We have people just using AI to make new images as an intermediary step until AI does it all.
I have no more art online unless of course it turns up in some AI Frankenstein creation. I probably won't renew my Adobe subscription after more than 30 years of using their software. Bye.
2
« on: October 09, 2023, 22:46 »
Has anyone heard yet if the "Training" as Adobe calls it uses the images forever?
3
« on: September 20, 2023, 18:35 »
@goober:
at least we agree on something:Istock.
people complain about Adobe and then contribute on Istock for a paltry 15% as non-exclusive,and I can guarantee you that I have sold many vectors on Istock at 15% when it should be 20%,It makes me think that perhaps the customer purchased the raster version of the vector,but I have serious doubts about this.
I created with my hands without taking inspiration from anyone and without stealing any ideas,content that I sold up to 30 times a day on Istock,yes,the same illustration sold 1 to 30 times a day,every day.
so Istock earned tens of thousands of dollars thanks to my work,I have been a contributor with them for 5 years,and do you know what the thanks were?
At the first problem that arose,instead of trying to contact me and ask for clarification regarding an issue that apparently they didn't understand due to the lack of knowledge of the creative software of those who make these decisions,instead of talking to me,they sent an email that effectively communicated that years of work and thousands of contents would be destroyed in one click.
so yes I support Adobe,because it is the best agency out there,and it is also the most present on this forum.
so if you also want to close with Adobe,where should you contribute?
Then you also have your reasons,perhaps there could have been an opt-out,but Adobe is still the best agency,it is perhaps not perfect but the most honest.
then why do you have to leave the forum?
we are here for a constructive exchange of opinions,trying to understand something in this strange world of microstock. Sometimes I will be right and other times wrong,like everyone else here,no one is always right,we all have our ideas.
I can only address a few points now. Why will I leave this forum? I just won't be back. I'm not earning much anymore from stock art. There was a time when I earned hundreds of thousands each year. Now it's a couple of thou for leaving my pieces in place. I had my stock on AS because they were paying around a dollar each sale. Now it's down around 30c to 55c. I was happy just to leave it there and pick up some cash each year. I left Istock because management there treated us very poorly. I will leave AS because I think that using our content for "training", and I'm yet to get a definitive definition of what that involved, seems to be a violation of goodwill. I want to work with companies and people that will collaborate for the good of the whole. If this "training" is in fact code for using parts of our images forever through AI then that's a massive violation of goodwill. If "training" is not using our images forever then I'm happy for Mat from Adobe to explain it to me. Send me a message Mat. I'm sure there will be a twilight period between hand produced art and AI produced art. So you'll all rock on for another 10 years. Overall I've had it with bad Leaders. Leaders who tell you they are working for your good but in reality they are pushing an agenda that suits the interests of a small group. All I can do is move away from them even if it's just to preserve sanity.
4
« on: September 19, 2023, 20:37 »
How is this legal? Next, they will start selling us for organs, because we ticked the box for "adobe can change the contract whenever and however it wants". They know we can't afford lawyers with the peanuts they pay us, so they keep scamming us again and again. It's a perfect crime. But if we all chip in, we can hire a team of good lawyers for all of us. Give it a thought.
And what you wish to demand from adobe?
Double the amount of money I was getting most years, forever. Adobe can just pay me year after year no matter what.
5
« on: September 19, 2023, 20:26 »
I wish the best wishes to the illustrator who is in law suit with AI,I hope she wins.
maybe you're getting a little confused,I'm not in favor of AI,but I try to adapt and continue to work even more than before AI.
The little niche you think is actually a bottomless abyss,there are so many things that can be created that an AI cannot do.
you're here complaining that Adobe used the content to train Firefly,instead of thanking them for thinking of a compensation model,because it wasn't written anywhere that Adobe was obliged to issue this Firefly bonus,as well as the contributor bonus for software,as well as the bonus for free collections..I'm almost starting to forget all the bonuses that Adobe is continuing to give to support artists! 
Of course it is also in their interest and it must be so,because if the ship sinks we sink with them,don't forget it!
in my opinion you are trying to pull a large ship towards the port with a rope,a ship that has already set sail!
Thank you again Adobe!Keep it up!
I didn't come here to complain but to see more details of what this extra payment was about and for the most part I find people like you celebrating the trojan horse that was just brought into the city. I haven't been in this forum for a couple of years and don't worry I'm leaving soon. I left Istock after many years with them and I'll be leaving AS too in a few months. You don't have to put up with immoral people or immoral companies. Adobe should have made us aware that they were going to do this training upfront and given us an option to opt out. Even if it is the inevitable future we should have been given the right to not participate. I don't want AI using parts of my images to make new ones if that's what "training" actually means. They haven't been clear with what the word training means. The only question of mine that Mat from Adobe has answered is that if I remove my images from AS the training stops. Even that answer wasn't clear. Training from new images? How can the training from old images stop if it's been done? Clear as mud. You say I'm trying to pull a ship to shore? No. I'm realising that a second ship built by the owners of the first ship has taken copies my 9 years of full-time work onboard and has just left compensating me with the equivalent of 2 months income. A visit from someone on the first ship asking me if I'd like my work to be taken onto the second ship, which will diminish the role of the first ship, would have been fair. The future - AI taking the place of Adobe CC software? Adobe will fight it legally with all their might. Lap it up Adobe. It's the future.
6
« on: September 18, 2023, 19:12 »
Without you, there is no us.
-Mat Hayward
With AI there is no me. Give us an opt-out for AI. Also explain clearly what "training" means in the context of your AI system. Does it involve taking parts of current images to create new ones? Hopefully AI will kill Adobe's software market share. Someone will create an engine that uses a rival software to do everything Adobe currently does. How does that sound? Sounds like a real possibility to me. Users won't have to know how to use the software. They will just guide it to produce the product they want with text or voice commands. Potentially one piece of software on some cloud somewhere in the world could pump out thousands of business documents a day. AI will take care of balance and form, quality control and output standards. I can imagine business persons just saying, I need a three fold A4 pamphlet and AI will guide them through it.
7
« on: September 18, 2023, 18:36 »
I don't believe that AI will make contributors obsolete,rather I believe it's up to us to make sure we don't become obsolete. [/quote] The whole point of AI is that it learns and gets better and better at a much faster rate than humans. Right now most of it looks like the worst clipart you can imagine but over time and not too much time it will surpass humans in every way. What you're proposing is that we can find some tiny niche in the AI world. The only way we can control AI is by using the law to stop it from using our images. I saw an article on TV where a prominent illustrator with a distinctive style was involved in a class action law suit against one of the big AI companies to force them to stop it from producing images in her style. If they win, then there is a small hope for some of us who don't go along with this. Stop thanking AS for their generous contribution (cough) to our current bank account based on some equation created by them.
8
« on: September 18, 2023, 18:11 »
1. What exactly does "training purposes" mean? Is it code for perpetual use of the images for a one time payment? Using parts of the image in new AI images isn't training. That's baking it in as part of the AI recipe.
2. I've been through my emails from Adobe Stock. I found one email at Dec 2022 saying you're now accepting AI generated images. I can't find one that notifies us that you're using our work perpetually for AI. When did you send us a clear notification that this was to happen?...
you should learn how ML works before making such inaccurate statements - #1 is just wrong - ai generators do NOT use 'parts' of your image - that's done once during training only
#2 you cant find it because they are NOT 'perpetually' using your image
I disagree. Your statements are just as opaque as the original posts about 'training' and a one time payment. At a basic level AI generated images use previous images to make new ones. So I was asking if 'training' is code for taking parts of our images to be used for making new ones. The original post said this is a one time payment. There has been no clarification on any of these terms that I've seen by Mat from Adobe Stock. So far all he has said in response to my questions is that if I remove my images from AS they won't be used for training. If I leave them there when does the training cease? I also thinking you're an immoral person. Supporting this immoral company shows no care or concern for peoples hard work. They didn't consult us. They just think they can do it under the current agreements. They haven't explained carefully the terms they are using and what they are actually doing. You're dumping on me for asking for clarification.
9
« on: September 17, 2023, 19:19 »
The Adobe rep who started this thread hasn't been back lately to answer for this crap situation. Here's a question Mat, from Abobe. If I pull my images off your site dose Adobe get to use them in perpetuity in your ai firefly system? If so, what date was this in perpetuity clause put into the artist agreement?
Hello Goober.
We currently have no plans to use removed content for training purposes.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
More questions for Mat from Adobe: 1. What exactly does "training purposes" mean? Is it code for perpetual use of the images for a one time payment? Using parts of the image in new AI images isn't training. That's baking it in as part of the AI recipe. 2. I've been through my emails from Adobe Stock. I found one email at Dec 2022 saying you're now accepting AI generated images. I can't find one that notifies us that you're using our work perpetually for AI. When did you send us a clear notification that this was to happen? 3. Apart from being 'possibly' legal under the contributor agreement, do you think it's moral? Giving us a clear warning and a possibility to opt-out would be moral. This is coercive not collaborative. Seems the best site for earnings in stock is the collaborative site Stocksy.
10
« on: September 15, 2023, 02:09 »
The Adobe rep who started this thread hasn't been back lately to answer for this crap situation. Here's a question Mat, from Abobe. If I pull my images of your site dose Adobe get to use them in perpetuity in your ai firefly system? If so, what date was this in perpetuity clause put into the artist agreement?
Mat is trying to be helpful, but my feeling is that there's a low probability of you getting an answer to that, or any other difficult questions posed in this thread. How the expression goes - these may be above his pay grade.
I appreciate what Mat is doing, and I also have a feeling he's doing a lot behind the scenes - these deals and stuff with royalty adjustments likely could have gone a lot worse if Mat weren't here to advocate for contributors.
But let's not kid ourselves, they have a whole legal department which is responsible for stuff like this, and it's a lot more likely that you'll get a response if you send (physical) mail there, preferably through a lawyer.
Yeah, silly of me to think the guy who started this thread would answer my question. We should have been given multiple clear warnings and an option to opt-out. I can't calculate which images were or weren't used so I have to divide the payout by the number of images I have there which is 3.8cents per image. Now I need to know if that's forever.
11
« on: September 14, 2023, 17:52 »
The Adobe rep who started this thread hasn't been back lately to answer for this crap situation. Here's a question Mat, from Abobe. If I pull my images off your site dose Adobe get to use them in perpetuity in your ai firefly system? If so, what date was this in perpetuity clause put into the artist agreement?
12
« on: September 14, 2023, 01:15 »
So it seems that all of our content that was uploaded over the last decade has now been added into the ai system for which we got a few pieces of silver and from now on only new content attracts more ai money. Which means the old stuff is stuffed. If I have a cartoon cat with a peanut ai can just make a new version with more nuts, which incidentally is what this deal is. Nuts to you.
13
« on: November 05, 2017, 05:06 »
You dont need to keyword again if your keywords are embedded in the meta data, just remove the offending keywords
I do have keywords in metadata but I was finding some better keyword suggestions inside SS. Also some of my keywords are in UK English and they get flagged as incorrect spelling. You'd think that SS could work that out.
14
« on: November 04, 2017, 20:55 »
They do, they reject the image and then you can fix the problem and upload again. Its standard process across all agencies.
So you can't click on a link from the rejected image and amend your titles and keywords, right? You have to re-upload and keyword again.
15
« on: November 02, 2017, 18:51 »
Yesterday no rejections. Today everything is rejected for some sort of keyword problem. Might as well stop and come back tomorrow.
Why doesn't SS allow you to fix keywords or titles for rejected images?
16
« on: October 19, 2017, 03:10 »
But your argument is that you should have started a business... as that would have been more successful than selling stock. My argument is based on fact (that you might have been successful or you might have not), yours is based on conjecture that your business would have been more successful than selling stock. Non-genius.
I'm originally from the UK but I've been travelling the US, Australia and South East Asia for the last 18 months or so. Mainly SEA though, and I've spent most of my time in Siem Reap in Cambodia where I'm currently renting an apartment. Yes, the cost of living is very cheap here. In theory, you could survive with a small studio, food, bills and not much else for $250 a month. In reality, you're looking at $500 to $750 a month for a reasonable standard of living. Anything over $1000 and you're doing pretty well.
That's pretty irrelevant though, to whether I could or couldn't live on stock income, as I make considerably more than that (my rent in Siem Reap is $1000 a month), and as long as I steer clear of places like London, Paris, New York, Los Angeles etc... I could get by relatively easily in most countries, purely on my stock income.
I uploaded my first stock item in 2009 and started doing stock full time in 2014. I now stick in a day or two a week. Sometimes more, sometimes considerably less.
Well the video guys do seem to be fairing better than the rest. A few dollars per sale is better than a few cents. After 20 plus years of pushing pixels I'm looking to do something different and I admire my friends who are reaping the rewards of creating solid small businesses. So long.
17
« on: October 18, 2017, 19:50 »
Sure do! Those are my non-exclusive clips. I also have an exclusive account at VideoHive which contains some After Effects templates, which account for a reasonable portion of my income.
On a side note, I like how you wanted to check out my portfolio, in what I can only assume was some kind of attempt to invalidate my argument based on whether I do or do not manage to live only selling microstock... when whether I do or don't manage to live only selling microstock was never part of my argument. Classy move!
Your argument is that I might not have been successful if I had started a local business. Genius. Others here wanted me to be as successful as Bill Gates or compared running a small business to winning major poker tournaments which is idealistic crapola. What I said originally is that in my opinion it's better to start a local business that supplies the needs of people around you. I know lots of people who have done this successfully. I checked out your port to see if you're a newcomer and to see your quality and I see that your quality is quite high and you've found a niche. Congrats. I don't know where you live or what your cost of living is. I don't know how long you've been doing it. So this could all be a giant pissing comp.
18
« on: October 18, 2017, 06:40 »
Fotolia and all the rest work. Shutterstock has never worked... iStock is new though, used to work, will look into that.
Yep, Last three work. So you make a living off this small handful of video clips?
19
« on: October 18, 2017, 06:34 »
Can you send me a link to your stock footage? Thanks.
They're at the bottom of his posts.
First three didn't work.
20
« on: October 18, 2017, 06:24 »
Whereas my friend who has over 20 year experience in building project management landed 5 mill of work in the first few months of this year.
Deciding that you should have spent the last year building a successful business is a lot different from actually spending the last year building a successful business. There's a lot more to it than that.
Everyone knows they should have invented (insert popular product here) but they didn't, unfortunately. Having a friend that has set up a successful business makes you no more qualified to actually set up a successful business, than anyone else in this forum... with the exception of maybe having a bit of a mentor and maybe some connections. Just saying that you should have set up a business doesn't mean it would have worked. I should have set up Amazon, but I was busy doing not much.
There's no point regretting something that you didn't do which could have just as easily ended in heartache and financial ruin as it would success... and be happy in the knowledge that you at least managed to do something that provided you with a living for the last ten years. But if you want to head off and set up your successful business now... then go for it! I will wish you well and look forward to seeing your name in lights!
Can you send me a link to your stock footage? Thanks.
21
« on: October 18, 2017, 06:18 »
I was on the first page of IS top contributors for many years. It's just that I now get 23 cents to $1 per sale. Whereas we used to get between $5 to $13 per sale and we had a lot more sales due to less competition.
Yes, there is more competition. Surprised? That means you have to be better and work harder. Evidently, some people do just that and make good money.
Again, the barrier to entry is low. Start your own construction company and see how low the barrier to entry is. 
My family are all in construction. I'm the only one who went into art. I'm working with them at the moment on a spec house.
22
« on: October 18, 2017, 05:06 »
Man, you've talked me into staying with stock! Just got to work out how I'm going to invest the $8 I made today.
I didn't say you should stick with it. If you have 10,000 images and make $8 per day that might be a strong indication you might not be producing what people want to buy.
10,000 images could yield $0 per month.
10,000 images could also yield $10,000 per month.
I was on the first page of IS top contributors for many years. It's just that I now get 23 cents to $1 per sale. Whereas we used to get between $5 to $13 per sale and we had a lot more sales due to less competition.
23
« on: October 18, 2017, 04:58 »
Build a real business that people around you want/need.
And how many "real" businesses do you think succeed?
How many failed clothing brands do you think there are for each GAP?
Lots of real business succeed every year.
Yes. But that's not an answer to my question. How many business do you think fail for each success?
I can give you the answer: Thousands and thousands.
Man, you've talked me into staying with stock! Just got to work out how I'm going to invest the $8 I made today.
24
« on: October 18, 2017, 04:55 »
Exactly. Your friends could have been Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. That doesn't mean you would be a billionaire if you had started a similar company...
People still make good money selling stock. But of course not everyone, why do people expect that? If you want a job with equal pay go get a standard office job.
Doing your own thing means the upside is enormous, and the downside is 0 (or less).
It's reasonable to believe that working from home is something a lot of people would like, and photography is one of the top interests people in the world have. You don't have to be a nobel prize winner to figure out that the competition will be pretty significant, especially today when the barrier to entry is low.
I enjoyed working from home and producing stock images but now I have very little to show for it because of oversupply. I uploaded around 10K of images over 9 years and then one company from china uploaded 100K to IS in one year. Another upload 30K to IS and that's just the ones i know about. Whereas my friend who has over 20 year experience in building project management landed 5 mill of work in the first few months of this year. He's been running his own company for less than 10 years. Face it, stock art is very close to the bottom of the financial totem pole.
25
« on: October 18, 2017, 04:47 »
Build a real business that people around you want/need.
And how many "real" businesses do you think succeed?
How many failed clothing brands do you think there are for each GAP?
Lots of real business succeed every year.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 11
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
