Author Topic: Announcing the Adobe Stock Advocates Program and Artist Development Fund (Read 7541 times)

rene · « **Reply #1 on:** October 15, 2020, 02:33 »

Why not just help talented artists? "Underrepresented communities" seems to be the most important point. Are we not anymore the unique human community?

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #2 on:** October 15, 2020, 03:08 »

It is really sad and frustrating to see corporations continuously taking actions to systemically harm under-represented communities while paying lip service with publicity stunts. I mean predictable and unavoidable but still sad.

In this example harming income of an extremely diverse group of contributors from all over the world with the setting up a free image collection which devalues their work to increase engagement for Adobe and their products. The effect being ultimately to drive income from them to the pockets of extremely well off and not at all diverse group of shareholders in wealthy countries. Simultaneously setting up a fund which ultimately does nothing to address the underlying issue or make any meaningful change is whitewashing plain and simple.

Same strategy as SS or more broadly why Citi Group or BP are constantly funding charities or museum exhibits. It’s just ad spend for the companies involved that will have no real impact on the lives of the vast majority of BAME, LGBT+ or disabled people but does wonders for their public image.

I am sure it it’s just a coincidence these two announcements have been made at the same time. If you want to have a real impact in the lives of under-represented communities as a group why not start by doing everything you can as a corporation to preserve the value of their work and level of their compensation (it’s rhetorical I know the answer).

Apologies for any redundancy caused by placing this in this thread, I can understand why it is in your interests to keep these two announcements separate, but the connection has to be pointed out.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #3 on:** October 15, 2020, 06:29 »

^^^ I can’t like this comment enough. It’s just like the statue of the brave little girl facing down the Wall Street bull, paid for and dreamed up by an investment firm that has a dismal record of hiring and promoting women. Smoke and mirrors.

And the request to keep comments about both announcements in separate threads, as if they’re not connected, and as if keeping the announcements separate will somehow keep us from connecting them.

thx9000 · « **Reply #4 on:** October 15, 2020, 07:07 »

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on October 15, 2020, 03:08

It is really sad and frustrating to see corporations continuously taking actions to systemically harm under-represented communities while paying lip service with publicity stunts. I mean predictable and unavoidable but still sad.

In this example harming income of an extremely diverse group of contributors from all over the world with the setting up a free image collection which devalues their work to increase engagement for Adobe and their products. The effect being ultimately to drive income from them to the pockets of extremely well off and not at all diverse group of shareholders in wealthy countries. Simultaneously setting up a fund which ultimately does nothing to address the underlying issue or make any meaningful change is whitewashing plain and simple.

Same strategy as SS or more broadly why Citi Group or BP are constantly funding charities or museum exhibits. It’s just ad spend for the companies involved that will have no real impact on the lives of the vast majority of BAME, LGBT+ or disabled people but does wonders for their public image.

I am sure it it’s just a coincidence these two announcements have been made at the same time. If you want to have a real impact in the lives of under-represented communities as a group why not start by doing everything you can as a corporation to preserve the value of their work and level of their compensation (it’s rhetorical I know the answer).

Apologies for any redundancy caused by placing this in this thread, I can understand why it is in your interests to keep these two announcements separate, but the connection has to be pointed out.

Well said. The only way to counter this is to constantly denounce it and expose it, like you just did.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #6 on:** October 15, 2020, 13:43 »

Oh, so the work produced by this program will be free too? It just sounds like a continuation of what you’ve already done. You’re paying a “salary“ of 12.5K (less than the federal minimum wage in the U.S.) to artists to provide their work for free. Or did I misunderstand something?

Tenebroso · « **Reply #7 on:** October 15, 2020, 15:17 »

These movements are not improvised. Against free, the competition disappears?
File monopoly? The Agencies, the rest of the agencies, against free, cannot fight.

It is clear that the market is changing. The current system needs to evolve.
Interesting move. Very interesting.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #8 on:** October 15, 2020, 15:30 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 15, 2020, 13:43

Oh, so the work produced by this program will be free too? It just sounds like a continuation of what you’ve already done. You’re paying a “salary“ of 12.5K (less than the federal minimum wage in the U.S.) to artists to provide their work for free. Or did I misunderstand something?

In conclusion, AS pays a fixed for each image. These images are free. Not everyone will be in this selection. The collaborators in this department, offer the work on demand or free choice, give them a price for their work. They will renew the images to be updated. End.

Customers have a service. Employees receive a fixed price for their work. Not all are going to be eternal collaborators. It will rotate, taking out the least profitable, keeping those that offer the most value to their customers.

Exciting news.

It is quite clear.

The client, the one who pays for the files, is only one in this section. Adobe is the one that pays for the files.

Amanda_K · « **Reply #9 on:** October 15, 2020, 15:45 »

This might be an amazing opportunity for the forty selected artists depending on the exact terms of deal. For the rest of us, I personally think it would be a lot more impactful and meaningful if Adobe used their considerable influence in the industry to work toward preserving the value of creative work in general. If any company has the position, resources and incentive to help come up with solutions for the "race to the bottom" in pricing of creative assets it would seem to be Adobe.

Education was mentioned in yesterday's announcement and I would genuinely love to see some sort of plan from Adobe about teaching copyright, IP and valuing your work as an artist. Maybe Adobe could even work with artists from the underrepresented communities to become ambassadors and educators in their local design communities?

I don't want to take away from the good this program will do for those selected and I'm not trying to be dismissive of it, but to me at least it feels awfully empty after yesterday's news, particularly if one isn't eligible to be considered. I'm not even sure I understand who is eligible, the phrase "self-identifying artists and content from underrepresented communities" sounds like vague corporate word salad to be honest. No offense meant, but the language could perhaps be more clear here.

It's good that Adobe is actively working on diversity and inclusion initiatives, but looking long term, what is the benefit of nurturing these new artists and content creators without a viable market for selling art in the future? Considering how much more difficult it has gotten in the last two decades to earn income this way, I truly wonder what it will look like to try to make a living as a creative in 2030, and moves like the free image collection seem to be making that a more remote possibility.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #10 on:** October 15, 2020, 15:52 »

AS is guaranteed that what it offers for free is the best. If customers are looking for a cricket in a cactus at sunrise, contributors will offer these images the following month.

It's the end of Freepik. They invented it. Now AS has better tools and possibilities than freepik and its army of self-employed non-salaried employees. Supposedly, in theory.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #11 on:** October 15, 2020, 16:02 »

Quote from: Amanda_K on October 15, 2020, 15:45

This might be an amazing opportunity for the forty selected artists depending on the exact terms of deal. For the rest of us, I personally think it would be a lot more impactful and meaningful if Adobe used their considerable influence in the industry to work toward preserving the value of creative work in general. If any company has the position, resources and incentive to help come up with solutions for the "race to the bottom" in pricing of creative assets it would seem to be Adobe.

Education was mentioned in yesterday's announcement and I would genuinely love to see some sort of plan from Adobe about teaching copyright, IP and valuing your work as an artist. Maybe Adobe could even work with artists from the underrepresented communities to become ambassadors and educators in their local design communities?

I don't want to take away from the good this program will do for those selected and I'm not trying to be dismissive of it, but to me at least it feels awfully empty after yesterday's news, particularly if one isn't eligible to be considered. I'm not even sure I understand who is eligible, the phrase "self-identifying artists and content from underrepresented communities" sounds like vague corporate word salad to be honest. No offense meant, but the language could perhaps be more clear here.

It's good that Adobe is actively working on diversity and inclusion initiatives, but looking long term, what is the benefit of nurturing these new artists and content creators without a viable market for selling art in the future? Considering how much more difficult it has gotten in the last two decades to earn income this way, I truly wonder what it will look like to try to make a living as a creative in 2030, and moves like the free image collection seem to be making that a more remote possibility.

Let's be clear.
Do you want clear words? This is a business.
As for the collaborators, it seems that AS is going to push us a little more.
We must associate in groups. It is clear that it is our future.
Everyone needs us, but we are not able to organize ourselves into groups. Simple.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #12 on:** October 15, 2020, 16:15 »

Previously, AS studied the price to customers, to access its database. Now, the price is fixed to the collaborators. Quality, AS files will be the best for your clients.

Amanda_K · « **Reply #13 on:** October 15, 2020, 16:22 »

I've been licensing images since 2003, I'm pretty clear on the fact that it's a business. I'm not sure I understand your other posts though, it seems like you are under the impression that Adobe is moving toward a new model that involves paying up front for content.

That isn't necessarily what's being said here. Even if that were the case I'm not sure I'd see it as good news. It's highly unlikely any company would be able to pay full time living wages to each artist it gets content from. Even the amount from this program wouldn't cover most people for a year. For me licensing creative assets is a way to get away from being tied to an employer or a salary anyway.

I think I agree with you about groups in theory, unfortunately that has not worked out very well in the past.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #14 on:** October 15, 2020, 16:29 »

Quote from: Amanda_K on October 15, 2020, 16:22

I've been licensing images since 2003, I'm pretty clear on the fact that it's a business. I'm not sure I understand your other posts though, it seems like you are under the impression that Adobe is moving toward a new model that involves paying up front for content.

That isn't necessarily what's being said here. Even if that were the case I'm not sure I'd see it as good news. It's highly unlikely any company would be able to pay full time living wages to each artist it gets content from. Even the amount from this program wouldn't cover most people for a year. For me licensing creative assets is a way to get away from being tied to an employer or a salary anyway.

I think I agree with you about groups in theory, unfortunately that has not worked out very well in the past.

I explain myself very badly, but you have summarized it very well.
AS has just tightened our belts three holes. I'm going up to SS again.
I can only help 20K artists. But this is not the right time or the right thread.
Bad news from AS. Very bad.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2020, 10:49 »

Trippy · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2020, 15:09 »

"...making this content available for Free gives the work and the artists greater visibility. The program also supports a need for creative democratization to make high quality content available to all"

Can you imagine a car manufacturer saying that?

mj007 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2020, 15:24 »

I wonder if there is any Federal money or Federal incentive to Adobe with this program ?

pancaketom · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2020, 15:48 »

Interesting reading about this initiative. The intersectionality of my specific demographic makes me think that this initiative is in no way available or meant for me, but I wonder about offering some $ to produce some content to be given away for free. I suspect I'd take it if offered, but as usual the details are in the fine print - for instance does all content have to go exclusively to Adobe to be given away for free? At some level that would be pretty serious exploitation (I'm not saying it is, but the specifics are pretty important here).

My gut reaction is giving away quality content for free will do more to hurt the creators than any initiative that benefits a select few.

cascoly · « **Reply #19 on:** October 16, 2020, 19:27 »

From the announcement:
Forty selected artists will use these funds to embark on ambitious new projects in 2021, offsetting costs that too often become barriers to developing new productions, like paying models, renting spaces, and covering equipment costs....

The Artist Development Fund will allow us to offer creative and financial opportunities for artists and fill an acute market gap by spotlighting the value of their communities. Content created through the Fund, sponsored by Adobe Stock, will be included in the free collection exclusively for one year.

Some initial questions:

After artists use the money to pay their 'costs', how much is left for their other living expenses(aka rent,food,...) much less real 'income' to the artist?
As work will then be offered for free is there an additional payment as for the other 'free' contributors?
Or, is the initial payment all they get?
How much of the artist's work during the year must be given to Adobe?
What happens to work Adobe doesn't add to the free collection?
Who owns the rights?
Are the artists to be considered freelance or contractors?
Do they get the benefits available to Adobe employees?

Tenebroso · « **Reply #20 on:** October 16, 2020, 19:50 »

Paid vacation and party on Friday until Monday?
It is clear that the words, one placed after the other, form beautiful sentences. But reality is what it is
Photos on deposit for a year, paid. Files released for invoicing, after a year, not bad at all. The problem is for the collective. The client covers their needs, and selling images with free images, charging a minimum price, will be more difficult.
Bad news for us.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 17, 2020, 02:42 »

PZF · « **Reply #22 on:** October 17, 2020, 07:45 »

I've seen some of Adobe's stuff promoted to teachers. Woke, woke and woke.
Diverse - provided you aren't white, hetero etc etc, it seems.

Pauws99 · « **Reply #23 on:** October 17, 2020, 10:42 »

Leaving aside any politics and motives its more subsidised content for the vast majority of contributors to compete against.

Trippy · « **Reply #24 on:** October 17, 2020, 13:25 »

If they want to help contributors and help people out of poverty. Just raise the royalty rate!

Pauws99 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 17, 2020, 16:17 »

"The work of underepresented groups is so valuable we are going to give it away".

csm · « **Reply #26 on:** October 17, 2020, 17:21 »

The thing that worries me is that stock is cheap enough as it is, a good proportion of sales under $1, how can clients claim that it too expensive?

It is quite sad to see how little value clients see in images.

cathyslife · « **Reply #27 on:** October 17, 2020, 17:56 »

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 17, 2020, 16:17

"The work of underepresented groups is so valuable we are going to give it away".

They are using pretzel logic. 😀

Noedelhap · « **Reply #28 on:** October 17, 2020, 18:32 »

Quote

The program also supports a need for creative democratization to make high quality content available to all.

Does this mean everything needs to be priced to the lowest common denominator, or given away for free? i.e. people who normally couldn't afford stock images or video are now able to acquire that content, just because the barrier needs to be lowered to cater to everyone?

Why? What's wrong with making content available only to those who can afford it? It's not like stock images are overly expensive. Do artists have to suffer income loss just because some people can't or don't want to pay a reasonable license fee?

Clair Voyant · « **Reply #29 on:** October 17, 2020, 18:55 »

Quote from: csm on October 17, 2020, 17:21

The thing that worries me is that stock is cheap enough as it is, a good proportion of sales under $1, how can clients claim that it too expensive?

It is quite sad to see how little value clients see in images.

Even more worrisome is how little the agency values its contributor base. All of the agencies. What next charging us rent for cloud storage to sell our images???

Tenebroso · « **Reply #30 on:** October 17, 2020, 19:01 »

Do not give them ideas that can generate business profit.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #31 on:** October 17, 2020, 19:53 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 17, 2020, 18:32

Quote
The program also supports a need for creative democratization to make high quality content available to all.

Does this mean everything needs to be priced to the lowest common denominator, or given away for free? i.e. people who normally couldn't afford stock images or video are now able to acquire that content, just because the barrier needs to be lowered to cater to everyone?

Why? What's wrong with making content available only to those who can afford it? It's not like stock images are overly expensive. Do artists have to suffer income loss just because some people can't or don't want to pay a reasonable license fee?

Why not give Adobe software away for free to attract people to licensing images?

Pauws99 · « **Reply #32 on:** October 18, 2020, 00:32 »

I don't produce the kind of work that this initiative is likely to generate or come from one of the groups that this is addressed at. If I did and wasn't part of the 40 chosen ones my income would now be under threat.

Digital · « **Reply #33 on:** October 18, 2020, 02:46 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 17, 2020, 19:53

Why not give Adobe software away for free to attract people to licensing images?

This perfectly illustrates the two different perspectives between the people who can and the ones who want.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #34 on:** October 18, 2020, 06:12 »

So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

Trippy · « **Reply #35 on:** October 18, 2020, 17:14 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 06:12

So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

Adobe manufactures tools for an artist. That does not mean that Adobe is an artist or even understands them.

cathyslife · « **Reply #36 on:** October 18, 2020, 17:53 »

Quote from: Trippy on October 18, 2020, 17:14

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 06:12
So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

Adobe manufactures tools for an artist. That does not mean that Adobe is an artist or even understands them.

They have been providing software for artists since the early 80s. I’m pretty sure they understand.

Tenebroso · « **Reply #37 on:** October 18, 2020, 20:50 »

We will always have this forum. To go crying at times and meditate.

cathyslife · « **Reply #38 on:** October 18, 2020, 21:04 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 06:12

So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

I quit buying when they switched to subscription.

Noedelhap · « **Reply #39 on:** October 19, 2020, 02:46 »

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 06:12

So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

To be fair, Adobe did pay the artists for submitting their content to the free collection.

Artist · « **Reply #40 on:** October 19, 2020, 03:20 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 19, 2020, 02:46

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 06:12
So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

To be fair, Adobe did pay the artists for submitting their content to the free collection.

How much?

Firn · « **Reply #41 on:** October 19, 2020, 03:28 »

Quote from: Artist on October 19, 2020, 03:20

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 19, 2020, 02:46
Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 06:12
So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

To be fair, Adobe did pay the artists for submitting their content to the free collection.

How much?

More than the annual RPI of each image. That's, if I am not mistaken, all the info we have.

Shelma1 · « **Reply #42 on:** October 19, 2020, 04:36 »

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 19, 2020, 02:46

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 06:12
So I now see Adobe’s press releases everywhere, with people crowing about how Adobe is “democratizing” art by giving away images and footage for free, effectively helping to put tens of thousands of us out of business.

I don’t see any press releases about Adobe “democratizing” anything by giving away their software for free, though. Wouldn’t that be helpful, if Adobe fought their competitors who make their software available for free by also offering Adobe software for free? I know creatives were really angry that Adobe switched to a yearly subscription, which costs people a lot more.

Weird that Adobe thinks people should pay more for their software and nothing for other people’s work.

To be fair, Adobe did pay the artists for submitting their content to the free collection.

Yes, we all know that. And there’s nothing fair about this.