|
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 - gnirtS
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28
1
« on: April 10, 2024, 06:58 »
SS went from 10 days or so to "less time than it takes to eat a packet of crisps" last week.
Now it back to normal - a few days.
AS for me is 2-3 days still for photo and video.
2
« on: April 03, 2024, 23:15 »
I'm putting a 99% likelihood on this sale being fraud.
I'm just hoping i don't wake up one morning and find my entire account suspended for suspicious activity. There is no way that video is worth 1% of that fee.
What codec was your video loaded in?
Only just saw this on a random scroll. ProRes. Nothing special about it.
3
« on: April 03, 2024, 23:13 »
Last few days they've gone the opposite and "reviews" (whatever that means any more) are near instant.
Had 130 reviewed in literally the time it took me to open and eat a bag of crisps.
That said, they accept anything now as the FB groups show.
Videos still seem to be taking a normal few days.
4
« on: April 01, 2024, 22:46 »
You can find an Adobe Stock livestream archive here: https://www.behance.net/adobestock/livestreams
-Mat Hayward
Thanks. Im being awkward again - i cant see anything before Oct 2021. These webinars were before then. Are they available on there too as the original replay link doesnt seem to work?
5
« on: March 29, 2024, 00:55 »
One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.
I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.
I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.
So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).
I find it difficult to justify it that way.
With an extended license, e.g. for print, the degree of commercial use is usually higher.
You have to distinguisch between an use for some random news / blog article as a gap filler or an use for print like a book cover.
A good book cover contributes significantly to a higher revenue amount, the commercial use aspect is much higher.
The same applies to print on demand stuff like t-shirts, etc.
So 10 cents are just extremely ridicilous low because the buyer will earn for sure thousand times more.
Ideally the extendend license would guarantee that the image is not used hundred of times but only the one buyer owns all rights.
The main problem is that no one is tracking the copyrights or the use restrictions (just like a half million prints, lol!), so such agencies just sell everything for some cents.
I agree that the licensing terms are too broad and vague for micros RF. Once we upload our images to microstock it's almost impossible then to track the usages and go after infrigement. The cost outweights any potential benefit except for a few rare cases.
We don't have to upload our images to these micros, there's always the option of going Alamy RM exclusive, that way we get a nice report everytime there is a usage and a clear procedure to go through to tackle infrigements (where the contributor can also earn from claims).
I'm happy at Arcangel as I know that the minimum I'll earn from a book cover is $75 net and as high as 4 figures. Once there is a sale I receive a report with type of license, the book title and author.
Even the Alamy reporting isnt great. Theres a ton of licence abuse there. If you only have 1 or 2 sales it might be possible to track and audit but for most people with 100s of sales or more a month across many platforms its simply not possible.
6
« on: March 28, 2024, 00:04 »
Reply:
"Sorry you are having a problem with this.
Unfortunately, review times are currently around 7-10 days, which is unusually long. Shutterstock will be working to clear the backlog as quickly as possible and our images should be reviewed shortly.
Apologies for the current delay and thank you for your patience in this matter."
They'll probably clear the backlog by just dumping the entire queue to reject (ie data licensing). Years ago when they had huge review queues they fixed it by bulk rejecting.
7
« on: March 27, 2024, 09:41 »
That is generally my experience (not making 20k to 50k a month though!), having been a video contributor since 2008, and earning a reasonable full time living from it until subs and other changes hit video sales.
Example would be SS. Prior to subs and 4k video sub my average income from a sale was $40. Now its $8. Ive seen no noticeable uptick in sale volume at all to begin to address that shortfall.
8
« on: March 25, 2024, 21:52 »
Yes it's an old thread but just curious if the overall guidelines contained in here are still applicable or have there been any backend changes to AS/Search/Keywording in the meantime that we need to be aware of?
There have not been any significant changes to how search works at Adobe Stock. You still want to list the most important/relevant keywords in order of importance. The most impactful keyword should be first. The top 10 keywords have the most weight in your search results.
Good luck,
Mat Hayward
Thanks for the response - thought it was worth checking a few years on in case things needed to be changed. As a side note - are the videos supposed to still be playable? On the links i can rejoin/click watch reply but end up with a blank screen and rotating circle forever. The video never seems to play.
9
« on: March 22, 2024, 23:58 »
Yes it's an old thread but just curious if the overall guidelines contained in here are still applicable or have there been any backend changes to AS/Search/Keywording in the meantime that we need to be aware of?
10
« on: February 27, 2024, 08:41 »
Some people here are suggesting that Adobe doesn't investigate properly and shuts down accounts without sufficient evidence, but maybe the long time that it takes them to investigate accounts (and then either unblock them or terminate them) could indicate that Adobe is being very thorough. As contributors we really have no idea what level of fraud is going on.
Im sure the level of fraud is now astronomical and growing exponentially - faster than they can cope with. Rather than risk innocent contributors lose weeks/months of money (potentially thousands) for a false alarm with no recourse, assuming no clear, obvious copyright issues id like to see the account still active for sales and earnings held in escrow for the duration of a review. If the review finds them innocent they get that money and no image ranking is then lost. If it finds against them its used by Adobe to cover whatever is needed.
11
« on: February 27, 2024, 04:51 »
I reached out to Mat Hayward three days ago but haven't received a response yet. If anyone here has alternate contacts or can assist me in reaching an Adobe representative, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Have you tried the Discord group?
12
« on: February 25, 2024, 22:08 »
I suppose there could be some kind of personal attack or revenge motive to pick someone out to harm their income?
There are discussions on some groups that a tactic can make a very good denial of service type attack if its a personal grudge. At "best" they lose it forever, at "worst" they still lose it for weeks/months while its investigated. Theres also the other possibility that they have content worth stealing OR picked at random to steal most of the content to reupload as their own at a later date. They do target random accounts just as a form of content mining. The whole thing is rapidly becoming a swamp of bad deeds and seemingly monitoring/enforcement hasnt kept pace with the exploiters. I suspect the problem here is the result of a rapid increase in fraud attempts from specific areas and a rapid increase of new contributor accounts resulting in automated systems flagging an account and no staff available to human review in any sensible time frame (if at all).
13
« on: February 25, 2024, 04:50 »
There have been contributors in the past - even back in the fotolia days - who manipulated the algorithm with downloads from another account or via "friends". Even fotolia moderators were banned for a longer period of time when this was discovered.
The FB groups for AS/SS (they advertise on all of them) are full of people advertising "account with xxxx credits - i'll buy your stuff for ranking" and other things going. Its very prevalent. And yes, so is the free trial thing. Mainly Pakistan and India but certainly elsewhere too. Accounts are either free ones, obtained using stolen CC credentials, stolen login credentials or obtained through someone's work. Its getting to the stage i think agencies might genuinely need to consider a contributor block from certain areas or at the very least a much much tougher vetting, review and monitoring regime. Some of these flagged accounts may genuinely be innocent victims - mistakes do happen and im aware of a few. BUT the vast majority of people on FB complaining were breaking the rules, got caught and arent happy about it.
14
« on: February 09, 2024, 00:20 »
Sad but entirely predictable that AS is chasing Shutterstock in the race to the bottom. An effective paycut for contributors.
Very little point uploading 4k here now if its just going to be sold off for pennies. Might actually be worth deleting existing 4ks so it doesn't eat into sales from P5 and elsewhere.
15
« on: December 15, 2023, 10:13 »
I'm putting a 99% likelihood on this sale being fraud.
I'm just hoping i don't wake up one morning and find my entire account suspended for suspicious activity. There is no way that video is worth 1% of that fee.
WOW, congrats, never seen such a big sale, wondering if was sold under clip packs, enhanced video or cart sales.
Its down as a "Cart Sale". But a 100% chance of being fraud/scam/error as it sold again today for a similar amount. (Previous record for me was $500 but that was legit). Something bad is going on here.
16
« on: December 15, 2023, 08:14 »
Something suspicious is going on.
Same file just sold again today for roughly the same amount.
No idea how/what but something, somewhere is screwing around.
17
« on: December 15, 2023, 04:15 »
I'm putting a 99% likelihood on this sale being fraud.
I'm just hoping i don't wake up one morning and find my entire account suspended for suspicious activity. There is no way that video is worth 1% of that fee.
18
« on: December 15, 2023, 04:10 »
I logged in to submit and check status of a few files and its horrific.
Now multiple clicks to find the rejection reason of a file and from what i can see, no way of displaying more than 1 at a time.
Submitting makes batches much harder. Now again multiple clicks on each one in turn to change or submit. No real way to do a batch or see what needs changing.
It hugely increases the time and inconvenience of submissions and checking submission status. Fortunately, you can still go back to the older one but for how long.....
Its the biggest step backwards on the submit page ive seen since contributing.
19
« on: December 01, 2023, 06:27 »
It sounds like they are just getting a bit lazy/offsetting the work to the contributor. Before the Pond5 reviewers would check/deterimine if it was editorial, and mark it as such. Now they are making "you" do "their" job...
Same, the P5 workflow is horrible enough already but i just sent everything, keyworded with a sensible description and let the staff decide if its editorial or not. Now its extra work deciding on a per clip basis, writing new descriptions and so on.
21
« on: November 30, 2023, 23:31 »
Email states the changes come in from Dec 4th.
Looks entirely to align it with Shutterstocks world view/lawyer view.
Editorial videos must now be labelled as such by the contributor and have an editorial caption.
Reminder about trademarks not allowed in keywords.
22
« on: October 12, 2023, 06:43 »
Im seeing more and more of this happening.
Sometimes its a small, genuine mistake, sometimes its just suspicious buying patterns by an outsider with a stolen credit card.
There seems to be no fair chance to respond and address the issue or expediate the process at all. More and more it seems like anyone could lose their AS account, at any moment, for no clear reason and struggle to get it back, if ever.
The lack of security for contributors now seems worse than shutterstock - all attempts to treat contributors as fair partners appears to have been abandoned.
23
« on: September 29, 2023, 08:53 »
Was it filmed from a drone?
Yes.
To fly a drone over cities, do you get some kind of permission or can anyone fly? How much money does it cost to get a permit?
That depends entirely on where you are in the world and potentially how heavy your drone is. Answers range from no to yes depending on that.
24
« on: September 22, 2023, 23:26 »
I'm seeing parallels here with SS a few years ago.
When it decided to massively expand its library suddenly it lacked the software, systems and human staff to cope with the surge and just introduced poorly designed systems and procedures to wade through the mess.
This to me looks similar - they cant cope with volume and are desperately trying to implement things to counter it with no real testing or plan.
25
« on: September 21, 2023, 00:21 »
Is there any sort of common trend here? Im fully aware of huge review times (and know in person someone with the issue) but ive submitted 30 images on the weekend and they're already live.
I've had 1 image stuck in-queue for weeks now that hasn't moved but everything else has.
The review delays seem to be random and vary person to person with no clear link from what i can see.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
