|
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 - HalfFull
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 22
26
« on: July 11, 2023, 04:22 »
This industry will change without a doubt, for better or worse. Everything changes over time, whether it's new technology, new social norms, new fashion trends. The big question is: are you able to adapt? I'd like to think we creatives are able to use our artistic skills to adapt and make the changes in the industry work for us rather than against us. Life, uh, finds a way.
The work I produce today is very different to what I started out doing.
27
« on: July 11, 2023, 03:33 »
I have plenty above 1 dollar, however being in the UK and Adobe changing the currency i now receive at least a 25% loss overall due to Adobe.
i still have a difficult time understanding this. when you get a sale is it in $ or euro? if sale lists $, where's the loss? if sale shows euro, how does it compare to similar sale in $ for non-EU? and euro over dollar is only 10%
Im in UK and Adobe used to show the earnings in pound sterling and payments in pound sterling.....1 sales are now shown as 1 dollar sales so after conversion I receive about 75p as opposed to 1......about a 25% loss....
And it is a bit dodgy regarding Adobes work practice as Adobe charge customers in the UK in Pound Sterling but pay their contributors in dollars so Adobe must keep 25% of UK contributors money now......
You seem to be under the impression you were getting 1 for each $1.... you weren't. They converted $1 to 0.75 automatically no matter what the exchange rate was. In otherwords, we were losing money a lot of the time. Now, we're actually earning more as the current conversion rates are above 0.75. Using Payoneer I get the current exchange rate less 0.015. So, if the Exchange rate is 0.80 for every $, I would receive an exchange rate of 0.785. As it stands, I could make the same $'s from Adobe this year but actual have more money in my pocket. Of course, there will be times when the exchange rate drops below 0.75 (the old fixed rate) but that is the way of the world and business... but, I'd rather that than the fixed rate which is rarely ever correct.
28
« on: July 11, 2023, 02:58 »
And what happened to the horse and buggy operators in the early 1900s when cars started to develop? This is the same thing, only a century later.
People will have to pivot and adapt in their own way.
While I agree to an extent, 1x Horse buggy driver = 1x car driver (to an extent). AI = potentially millions of lost jobs with minimal new opportunities to replace it. I mean, how many AI programers will be needed. When mechanical equipment replaced the horse and cart on the farm, there were a lot of new jobs coming up to replace the massive job losses in the countryside. I really don't see a massive increase in new jobs to replace all the jobs lost. I think a lot of political figures etc are starting to realise the implications now. The same as they cheered home working because of its environmental benefits only to backpedal when they realised how many city centre jobs would be lost. The lost Tax revenue of people not working has potential to cause massive problems to health and public services that are not directly effected by AI but due to the reduction in money will available due to lost taxes. You can't just tax companies otherwise they'll leave or invest elsewhere. We are certainly entering a challenging phase, I just need to get by for 10-12 years before I retire but, I really feel for the young going forward with fewer jobs available and more and more people fighting for them.
29
« on: June 28, 2023, 12:57 »
In the UK, last year I received 5 per image, this year I only received 3.83.....Should really receive $6.36 per image if you live in the UK but I guess that is a selfish POV :-)
Im quite sure we received 3.75 per image in the UK last year and all previous ones as it, as well as all income, was based on the pound being worth a fixed $0.75 which was under its actual value, conversion rate.
30
« on: June 23, 2023, 10:33 »
It also sounds like a lot of people are opting out. Otherwise, there'd be no need to use declined, sub standard images that won't be joining the rest of the images in the contributors port.
31
« on: June 23, 2023, 08:01 »
I've been in contact with AS and Mat recently about rejections. The ones I took issue with do appear to have been approved now (now in the accepted list, image portfolio)... I'm waiting on a follow up confirming what actually happened.
I have to say I found Mat to be very understanding and balanced with his assessment. I have no issues there at all. Hopefully the rejection problem is a growing pain issue due to the high volume of images rather than a change in policy.
If I had any issue, AS should have seen this coming... we've seen how fraudsters have worked tirelessly in the Stock Industry, especially at Shutterstock, so there was bound to be a massive influx of chancers submitting dodgy work etc by the 1000's.
Personally, I'd like to see AI have its own queue away from photographs, illustrations and human pngs etc and for any delay to affect them only rather than impacting everyone. At the moment photographs seem to go through ok but png's take an age.
32
« on: June 21, 2023, 13:08 »
Well... so far this week it has been 100% rejection. Not a single file accepted (photographic). Bear in mind my lifetime rank is around 520 and I've been submitting to them for about 10 years so it's not like I'm a new contributor with no experience.
I've deleted the files that were waiting to go to them and for now, I'm going to pause submitting photographic content as I don't want to damage my acceptance rate. I'm waiting on a reply from AS when I contacted support about the problem.
I really like AS and I'm sure they'll sort it out but the radio silence, I have to admit, is rather concerning.
Edit. I've also asked for feedback as to what, "Quality Issues" because if there is problem, I want to resolve it. It's just that they pass everywhere else so it's a bit confusing as to why just AS. Hopefully someone will reply.
33
« on: June 21, 2023, 10:06 »
Mat...
Can you please chime in on this. It is now 7 8 pages of concern from several contributors and not a peep from Adobe. In the meantime I will cease to submit my work as it has become a complete waste of my time. These sudden rejections for quality issues en masse is nonsensical and confusing.
I will reach out on a limb and suggest I am not the only one who would like an explanation.
Thanks in advance.
I'm guessing Mat hasn't seen this thread because I don't think he checks the general forum. If this thread was moved over to the Adobe Forum, he'd probably jump in....which would be nice
Take a look at his replies on page 4 of this thread. Some of them were most unlike Mat... I'm starting to worry Adobe may have cloned him with a faulty bit of AI (joking). On a positive note, Shutterstock now seem to have lost the dodgy AI reviewing system (or improved it) as they no longer seem to produce weird similar, poor quality declines that we are seeing at AS now. Maybe they sold the old system to AS?!? Again...not being serious.
34
« on: June 21, 2023, 07:57 »
I have a feeling they have a new system and sold the duff one to Adobe!
35
« on: June 19, 2023, 15:19 »
I remember joining Corbis. You sort of let them know you were interested and then waited... waited... then one day a phone call say,"Corbis Calling" 😂
I remember my editor was Vanessa Kramer... Scared the *$%$ out of me initially but she was great to deal with! I think she retired when Getty took them over!
"When multiple respected platforms take 90%-95% of submitted work and only one respected platform suddenly, and I do mean suddenly rejects 90%-100% of my submitted content with no explanation other than "quality" issues you can safely assume there are internal issues that need resolving."
Definitely... same happened here. Reliably have 90-95% accept then all *&^% breaks out!
36
« on: June 19, 2023, 14:00 »
Mine havent been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, theyre been declined as similar because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, dont worry, Everest summit will do they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected 
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs.
Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
And I do understand the mountain problem. "The moderator needs to make a decision within a second or two and move on to the next image or video" (quote Mat).
So obviously within those two seconds of watching your photo or video and reading your title, those mountains must look the same
It's like ultra fast scanning with collateral damage.
Thanks Adobe for taking your time on our curated submissions!
Edit:
Maybe Adobe can get some classes from Getty's which (unlikable as they might be to some) do a thorough review, give you the abillity to revise stuff, if possible, and otherwise explain very clearly why your submission is rejected. And they do it within a week.
The best review process I experienced was Corbis. They were thorough but you knew a pass was a pass and a decline was a decline. Get this, you actually dealt with them over the phone as well and could chat about any problems! I'm probably showing my age now 🤣
37
« on: June 19, 2023, 13:20 »
Mine havent been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, theyre been declined as similar because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, dont worry, Everest summit will do they look similar!
Then it must be the morons they hired. Or maybe Mat is doing the reviews these days of real photos while all others are doing the AI submissions? He understands prefectly why your submissions are being rejected
I've fired a question over to support. If it's a case of no longer wanting this particular content then I'm ok with that, I can just direct it to the other agencies. I just don't want to waste my time submitting stuff to them if they're never going to accept it. That's just wasting my time and theirs. Usually Mat is very proactive with supporting contributors so I would have thought he'd chime in with an explanation.
38
« on: June 19, 2023, 12:46 »
Mine havent been declined on quality. For instance, if I submit 2 images of mountains, two completely different ones and keyworded and captioned detailing all visible mountains etc so they can be used in relevant magazine articles, theyre been declined as similar because everyone knows all mountains are the same. Writing an article about K2, dont worry, Everest summit will do they look similar!
39
« on: June 19, 2023, 12:33 »
Yeah, Im seeing high numbers of rejections after 10+ years of near 100% approvals. They need to get a grip as theyre becoming impossible to submit to.
Edit, just to clarify its straight photographs theyre declining, illustrations and composite imagery seems ok. I think Ill just take that as Adobe are no longer looking for photographs and just send that work to other agencies and illustrations etc to Adobe. Im dont want to wreck an excellent acceptance rate.
40
« on: June 13, 2023, 05:14 »
The only sensible thing to do is not waste any more time adding metadata to "real" images and submitting them to stock sites (especially adobe) and complaining about how they aren't getting reviewed or rejected. The big players are telling you in no uncertain terms that they don't need your images and it's foolhardy to expect to make any money off photography in the future.
Really? Ok
41
« on: June 13, 2023, 05:07 »
I dont understand Adobe stock strategy Real human artists goodbye or welcome?
They want to do away with having to pay artists/ photographers.
People will just pay to use the their AI, either online or integrated with their software via subscription. Their software will target the same market as Canva i.e. "designers" and "digital artists" as a distinct category will mostly disappear. Businesses/ marketing types/ advertisers/ entrepreneurs will be able to do the work via the apps directly with simple prompts and very basic skills. Much bigger market for them too.
"They want to do away with having to pay artists/ photographers." I don't think it's that simple. If they did that, who'd pay for the majority of their software that is their main bread and butter? The designers and photographers would be out of work so wouldn't need it. There's a lot of AI imagery that is good, a lot more that is poor but one thing they all have in common (for me anyway), I can tell they're fake. There's just something false about a lot of them. Now, will clients want to use imagery that looks fake all the time. Everything has a certain style/look. I think the novelty factor will wear off at some point and the balance between real and AI imagery will settle down.
42
« on: May 22, 2023, 04:52 »
Evaristo tenscadisto, programs that create AI are not available to everyone. People pay a lot of money to work in them. The income from these programs may not even cover these costs.
That makes it even worse then... in other words, they're going to make a lot of people redundant for nothing! Trust me though, they're not doing it for the good of their health, they're doing it as they know they can make a lot of money from it but first, they need to eliminate the competition so they have a monopoly and can charge what they want. However, who is going to create the new images, styles and trends needed to create the datasets of the future? Eventually it'll be learning from it's own images / mistakes. Thankfully, the music industry as well as others who have louder voices than illustrators/photographers etc have also seen the danger and are pushing for regulation and challenging the minority seeking to gain at the expense of the many. Even lawyers are now looking over their shoulder. I'd love to know what the creators of AI and politicians think is going to happen when millions upon millions of jobs are lost with minimal new jobs in return. How is the state going to support them? Who is going to buy the products and services that companies manufacture when people no longer have the work and therefor money to buy what they produce?!? There are so many things AI can be used for and have a positive effect but I really do think they need to take a step back and fully consider the implications of what may be about to happen. I retire in 10 years or less so for me it's less of a concern but for the younger generation... well, the list of jobs to be replaced by AI is growing by the day and a lot of people are finishing their degrees and finding their chosen jobs are at risk or will be taken by AI. Interesting times indeed.
43
« on: May 22, 2023, 02:04 »
Don't get me wrong but i think your perspective is limited to the perception of Knowledge you have about AI.
...
... Please don't ask me ro believe if I am specific about my requirements that the A.I. isn't going to dip into his data sets and pluck out all images of a girl with a red balloon and generically create something because I won't believe you. Its going to use barely two images because it's also been trained to be fast and accurate. What's more accurate and fast than a direct copyslightly adjusted to swerve copywrite claims....
we dont ask you to believe because you continue to prove E.T.'s point and show you dont understand the basics of generative AI. if you don't want to believe the facts, that's of course your choice, but you're then just making things up as you go. the datasets DO NOT contain any images to pluck out, so your example is nonsense. you obviously haven't read the many posts that have explained how gen-AI actually works.
Would the Datasheets exist without our images? Doesn't matter how much you try to defend them, it's still the case they took the imagery of millions to make a stack of money for a few which could put the us all out of business and just because you suddenly can use this to submit work you couldn't do before, eventually they will bypass you and you'll find yourself out of pocket, work as well.
44
« on: May 03, 2023, 17:16 »
But under data protection laws they can only keep the data for so long before it has to be deleted, replaced. Hence why they pay us every 6 months and if we opt out, they cannot use our images to produce the replacement datasets.
45
« on: May 03, 2023, 16:55 »
Confirmed on their earnings page for me now. Contributor Fund.
I'm also opted out so I'd imagine this will (or should be) the last payment I'll receive. $180, $30 p/month which is a joke considering the amount of damage this will do.
47
« on: May 03, 2023, 05:27 »
Yes, I have this too, and apparently most contributors have. Guess it's coming from the contributor fund, but they didn't update the earnings details (yet).
I have opted out of Data deals long ago and still have around 250$ in unpaid. So probably it is one of numerous shutterstock bugs
I'm also opted out as well. This sounds like (if it's not a mistake) an earnings correction from a previous unknown error. Edit. Hopefully it won't be too long before I hear back from the finance team. I did receive an email from SS saying that they will be looking into the matter. We shall see what happens next.
48
« on: May 03, 2023, 04:44 »
Hey, I didn't want to make a new thread because of this. Anyone having problems with their earning summery missing sales?
Since this morning the amount of this month's earnings on the earning summery page and the unpaid earnings in the upper right corner on my dashboard show a different amount by around $60.
I thought the missing sale(s) would show up eventually, but it's been a while now and new sales keep dribbling in, but nothing to make up for the missing amount.
Oh thank the lord you posted this. Yesterday I noticed I was $200 over what I'd earned for May so far and assumed something had gone wrong with last months earnings and that they'd either lost a load of dollars off last months pay (prior to sending it to me) or someone had taken a big chunk of my earnings. I've emailed them about it but like you, there is no sign of any payments being made to me. No sign of any corrections to previous sales or new large sales being made. Just a mysterious amount which is either an incorrect balance from last month or, as you put it, a large payment received in May that is unaccounted for. I'm hoping it's your explanation rather than my negative one on the assumption SS are good and * things up. Either way, I'm not alone in this strange balance thing! Cheers
49
« on: April 25, 2023, 14:49 »
I've noticed a few ports where the content seems like it's AI generated but hasn't been labeled as such. Could be wrong but the link below seems to have a lot of png files that are of the size and style of AI content.
https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/209649716/Sandaru?asset_id=543344544
Could this type of action leave Adobe exposed, as in, the client wants to avoid AI but accidentally picks up content that is because it hasn't been tabled correctly. If they're receiving a lot of stuff like this from AI generators it would go someway to explain the long wait times for work to be approved.
Exposed to what?
Taking the other view, what if someone uploads an image that is not AI but marks it as AI created? Similar to claiming a photo is taken with a cell phone but it's actually a full frame digital camera or a scanned analog image.
Is this about the final image or how it was created? Is Adobe somehow liable for AI images that aren't marked as being AI originally, but now altered into invisible background PNGs?
Yeah I can see what you are saying about the size being 2048 square on these. Looks like more than a coincidence and style choice.
Legal action. Scenario - Advertising agency receives a brief from one of their big name clients. In the brief it states the work is for a long running campaign and needs unique looking illustration that will have full copyright release and they do not want any AI imagery given the uncertainty over copyright in various countries. The agency picks an image that's not marked as a AI (but it is AI). Later on, a number of countries ban the use of AI unless they can prove the datasets used by the AI to learn were collected after receiving permission from copyright owners with agreed compensation. Or, it turns out the image looks very similar to someones actual illustration and as a result, they're in breach of copyright. The client is sued by the copyright owner, the client sues the agency, the agency sues the library and they sue the contributor. And, the agency loses their client. Or, someone steals their campaign image and they try to sue for breach of copyright... but they can't because they don't have copyright themselves due to changes to or on going legal challenges. The papers here seem to have a new story every other day from one group or another fighting for artist protection... that is, musicians, illustrators, photographers and writers etc. Then there are data protection groups concerned about how the massive datasets were built and whether they've breached GDPR laws etc. I could see legal cases going on for years and while that goes on, companies will want to avoid negative publicity or potential law suits. This is early days to know exactly how things will go. Adobe will be fine provided contributors give the correct metadata about the image origins. If they don't, then I guess the contributor has breached T&C's and leaves themselves exposed to being sued as well. Providing the correct AI data protects the contributor as well as everyone else. It's in all our interests to do so. Edit. Oh, and marking something as AI when it's not is fine. If they like the image anyway as it will have full copyright protection.
50
« on: April 25, 2023, 06:50 »
I've noticed a few ports where the content seems like it's AI generated but hasn't been labeled as such. Could be wrong but the link below seems to have a lot of png files that are of the size and style of AI content. https://stock.adobe.com/uk/contributor/209649716/Sandaru?asset_id=543344544Could this type of action leave Adobe exposed, as in, the client wants to avoid AI but accidentally picks up content that is because it hasn't been tabled correctly. If they're receiving a lot of stuff like this from AI generators it would go someway to explain the long wait times for work to be approved.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 22
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
