pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Announcing the Adobe Stock Advocates Program and Artist Development Fund  (Read 2081 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: October 14, 2020, 17:58 »
+2
There were two major announcements by Adobe today that impact Adobe Stock contributors. The first was the launch of the Adobe Stock Free collection which is being discussed in this thread: https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/introducing-the-free-collection-from-adobe-stock/msg557657/?topicseen#new

The second announcement is the Advocates program which is a new initiative from Adobe Stock focused on championing self-identifying artists and content from underrepresented communities. To reflect Adobes commitment to inclusion, Adobe Stock is taking meaningful action: Were investing $500,000 in a new Artist Development Fund. Forty selected artists will use these funds to embark on ambitious new projects in 2021.

It is an exciting program and I'm looking forward to seeing it progress. The formal announcement for both the free collection and the Advocates program can be read here: https://blog.adobe.com/en/2020/10/14/adobe-stock-enabling-creativity-free-assets-artist-development-fund.html#gs.iq3y4h

For the sake of organization and to prevent a redundant conversation, please keep the comments and feedback about the free collection in the other thread linked above.

Let me know if you have any questions or comments regarding the Advocates program and Artist Development Fund.

Thank you,

Mat Hayward



« Reply #1 on: October 15, 2020, 02:33 »
+4
Why not just help talented artists? "Underrepresented communities" seems to be the most important point. Are we not anymore the unique human community?

« Reply #2 on: October 15, 2020, 03:08 »
+38
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. Its 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 its 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 (its 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 »
+9
^^^ I cant like this comment enough. Its 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 theyre not connected, and as if keeping the announcements separate will somehow keep us from connecting them.

« Reply #4 on: October 15, 2020, 07:07 »
+8
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. Its 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 its 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 (its 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.

« Reply #5 on: October 15, 2020, 13:16 »
0
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. Its 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 its 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 (its 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.

I reached out to the team that has been working hard on this program and asked them to comment on your statement. I want to share what they told me with you.

"Adobe has had a longstanding commitment to diversity and inclusion that is deeply rooted in our company culture. This can be found in our people, product, and ecosystem.

Adobe Stock shares the Adobe corporate ethos. We have many different diversity and inclusions initiatives in progress. To be thoughtful and meaningful requires longterm planning and implementation. We know that we can do more and have committed to take immediate action to support underrepresented communities. With a $500,000 commitment in 2021, the Artist Development Fund helps us build a platform and give voice to self-identifying artists from underrepresented communities. Each artist will receive approximately $12,500 per production to fund their own personal project or work with us on topics. We intentionally created compensation that was larger than the average RPI (Return on investment) to support fair and equitable terms to the artist, while at the same time, 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.

At Adobe, we believe that stock represents creatives helping creatives and take great pride in providing a platform that supports creativity for all. We look forward to showcasing artists and, in their own words and imagery, share their work and how it is informed by their culture and life experiences."

Shelma1

« Reply #6 on: October 15, 2020, 13:43 »
+6
Oh, so the work produced by this program will be free too? It just sounds like a continuation of what youve already done. Youre 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?

« Reply #7 on: October 15, 2020, 15:17 »
+1

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.

« Reply #8 on: October 15, 2020, 15:30 »
0
Oh, so the work produced by this program will be free too? It just sounds like a continuation of what youve already done. Youre 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.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 15:37 by Tenebroso »

« Reply #9 on: October 15, 2020, 15:45 »
+4
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.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 15:57 by Amanda_K »

« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2020, 15:52 »
0
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.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2020, 15:54 by Tenebroso »

« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2020, 16:02 »
0
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.

« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2020, 16:15 »
0
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.

« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2020, 16:22 »
0
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.

« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2020, 16:29 »
0
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.

« Reply #15 on: October 16, 2020, 10:49 »
0
.

« Reply #16 on: October 16, 2020, 15:09 »
+5
"...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?

« Reply #17 on: October 16, 2020, 15:24 »
+1
I wonder if there is any Federal money or Federal incentive to Adobe with this program ?

« Reply #18 on: October 16, 2020, 15:48 »
+3
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.

« Reply #19 on: October 16, 2020, 19:27 »
+2
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?

« Reply #20 on: October 16, 2020, 19:50 »
0
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 »
0
.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2020, 03:54 by Shelma1 »

PZF

« Reply #22 on: October 17, 2020, 07:45 »
+1
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.

:(

« Reply #23 on: October 17, 2020, 10:42 »
+4
Leaving aside any politics and motives its more subsidised content for the vast majority of contributors to compete against.

« Reply #24 on: October 17, 2020, 13:25 »
+10
If they want to help contributors and help people out of poverty. Just raise the royalty rate!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
32 Replies
9164 Views
Last post June 27, 2015, 12:53
by cobalt
3 Replies
1761 Views
Last post November 05, 2017, 10:48
by ShadySue
217 Replies
40334 Views
Last post August 21, 2020, 10:18
by mino216
61 Replies
9528 Views
Last post September 24, 2020, 19:21
by MatHayward
0 Replies
878 Views
Last post April 23, 2020, 11:01
by MatHayward

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle