MicrostockGroup
Agency Based Discussion => Adobe Stock => Topic started by: MatHayward on October 14, 2020, 10:09
-
Hi Everyone,
Moments ago we launched a free collection on Adobe Stock. We'll be sending an email to contributors later today with this announcement but I wanted to give you a heads up in advance.
I expect you will have some (many?) questions and I'm happy to answer any that I can. We have put together a Learn & Support page with details and an anticipated list of FAQ for you here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/free-collection-contributor-information.html
You can view the collection here: https://stock.adobe.com/free
Let me know your questions, I'll be around all day.
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
-
>:(
-
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known
-
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known
I expect there to be questions and concerns from the contributors which is exactly why I started this conversation before the email went out. I know many people read the posts in this forum without commenting so to answer your specific question, I don't "view" that as a sign in any way.
I can assure you that I've been asking hard questions of the team and I genuinely believe this program has the potential to benefit contributors in several ways. I'll share a couple of key takeaways from my original questions here.
First, the contributors with content in the free collection were compensated in advance for their participation. While it's limited to select contributors now, we'll allow others to participate as time goes on. The content in the free collection will be rotating to keep it fresh and relevant. As content leaves the free collection, it returns to the paid collection.
Second, and I believe most importantly, if you browse the Adobe Stock free collection, you'll see that there are a lot of assets that cover a wide range of subjects, but no one particular subject has a deep selection to choose from. That is by design. When someone who typically only uses free sites visits Adobe Stock, they now have the opportunuity to see more search results beyond free. This is a potential customer base that was not visiting paid sites historically. The result should be an expanded market for paying customers.
I welcome your feedback and look forward to the conversation.
-Mat
-
I was busy searching the free collection to see what the competition is for those of us who hope to continue licensing our work.
A couple of observations:
-Every agency which has started a free collection has said it would drive traffic to the agency and thus boost sales. I've never seen any evidence that it worked out like that.
-The Adobe Stock free collection - conveniently there's a drop-down so. you can search only that image type - is less helpful than the free agencies which Adobe Stock, Shutterstock & others have affiliate links with. At least there, there's a line of images top and bottom for the paid content with the free stuff in the middle. There is nothing directing users to paid content while searching the free content
- Connected to the above, the free section has content from Wavebreak media (~14,200 images in WavebreakMediaMicro and wavebreak3), Rawpixel.com (over 10,000), Wirestock (~5,300), Gstudio (~4,000), Jeremy Bishop (~4,000), Good Studio (~3,000), Artinspiring (~4,000), Caia Image (~4,000), Jacob Lund (~7,000), Visual Generation (~4,000) Hero Images (~7,000), Morgan (111). This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content.
- When a search in the free section turns up one or two results, there's a blank page underneath. Wouldn't offering content from the paid section to fill up the page make sense? Isn't offering your paid license content a reasonable option when there is not much in the free section?
- When there's nothing in the free section for a search, content from paid sections is shown, as is a line of totally unrelated images from the free section! Why continue to promote the free section with random images?
About the only good news from a purely personal point of view is that most of the type of content I offer isn't covered in the free section, but I can't see how contributors (other than those who got paid to create this collection) will benefit, short term or long.
-
I understand the concept but it rarely works well.
-
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known
I expect there to be questions and concerns from the contributors which is exactly why I started this conversation before the email went out. I know many people read the posts in this forum without commenting so to answer your specific question, I don't "view" that as a sign in any way.
I can assure you that I've been asking hard questions of the team and I genuinely believe this program has the potential to benefit contributors in several ways. I'll share a couple of key takeaways from my original questions here.
First, the contributors with content in the free collection were compensated in advance for their participation. While it's limited to select contributors now, we'll allow others to participate as time goes on. The content in the free collection will be rotating to keep it fresh and relevant. As content leaves the free collection, it returns to the paid collection.
Second, and I believe most importantly, if you browse the Adobe Stock free collection, you'll see that there are a lot of assets that cover a wide range of subjects, but no one particular subject has a deep selection to choose from. That is by design. When someone who typically only uses free sites visits Adobe Stock, they now have the opportunuity to see more search results beyond free. This is a potential customer base that was not visiting paid sites historically. The result should be an expanded market for paying customers.
I welcome your feedback and look forward to the conversation.
-Mat
What I see in the free vectors, searching within my niches, is simpler ripoffs of some of my illustrations. I'm sure if other illustrators look they'll find the same thing. So now I'm competing against someone who's copying my work and getting paid in advance to offer it for free and take sales from me.
Yay.
Who knows of a good, free alternative to Adobe Illustrator? I'd like to switch to that, and maybe it'll attract me to Adobe's product and I'll feel the sudden urge to pay for it instead of the free software.
-
I was busy searching the free collection to see what the competition is for those of us who hope to continue licensing our work.
A couple of observations:
-Every agency which has started a free collection has said it would drive traffic to the agency and thus boost sales. I've never seen any evidence that it worked out like that.
-The Adobe Stock free collection - conveniently there's a drop-down so. you can search only that image type - is less helpful than the free agencies which Adobe Stock, Shutterstock & others have affiliate links with. At least there, there's a line of images top and bottom for the paid content with the free stuff in the middle. There is nothing directing users to paid content while searching the free content
- Connected to the above, the free section has content from Wavebreak media (~14,200 images in WavebreakMediaMicro and wavebreak3), Rawpixel.com (over 10,000), Wirestock (~5,300), Gstudio (~4,000), Jeremy Bishop (~4,000), Good Studio (~3,000), Artinspiring (~4,000), Caia Image (~4,000). This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content.
- When a search in the free section turns up one or two results, there's a blank page underneath. Wouldn't offering content from the paid section to fill up the page make sense? Isn't offering your paid license content a reasonable option when there is not much in the free section?
About the only good news from a purely personal point of view is that most of the type of content I offer isn't covered in the free section, but I can't see how contributors (other than those who got paid to create this collection) will benefit, short term or long.
These are all good observations Jo Ann, and I appreciate your insight and feedback (not to mention your lighting fast deep dive into the collection). I hope those of you reading this know that I will only say what I mean and that maintaining my integrity is extremely important. I won't share personal opinions pretending something will benefit contributors if I don't actually believe it. In this particular case, as mentioned, I asked hard questions of those responsible for the decision and I was personally given answers that satisfied me. The contributor community at large was a part of this conversation from the beginning within the entire team and that's very important to me.
To your specific points....
"When a search in the free section turns up one or two results, there's a blank page underneath. Wouldn't offering content from the paid section to fill up the page make sense? Isn't offering your paid license content a reasonable option when there is not much in the free section?"
Yes, I think there is opportunity to show more from the paid collection in an in-your-face manner and I'll share this feedback with the team. What comes to mind immediately is how the Premium content is displayed in searches for core collection content.
"This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content."
Yes, the content in the free collection is good, sellable content. That is intentional so that visitors are introduced to the quality of the overall Adobe Stock collection. It would not be doing anyone any good to showcase work with quality that doesn't meet our standards or the standards of the potential customers. If you look to sites that only offer free content, you'll see that the quality is typically quite high. It's reasonable to assume the expectations of the people that use those sites exclusively is equally as high.
"About the only good news from a purely personal point of view is that most of the type of content I offer isn't covered in the free section, but I can't see how contributors (other than those who got paid to create this collection) will benefit, short term or long."
With this point, I'm afraid we'll need to agree to disagree. Jo Ann, you've been submitting stock as long as I have and you are a talented photographer. My personal opinion is that you should be shooting as wide a variety of subjects as you possibly can as your knowledge of stock and your photography skill set is above-average. Having content in the paid collection of a similar nature to what is in the free collection can only benefit you as opposed to not having it online at all. I do expect to see expanded searches from people driven to the site by the free collection so if your content is displayed in those searches, you have the potential for sales you would have never seen otherwise.
Thanks again for the feedback.
-Mat
-
Very depressing turn of events.
-
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known
I expect there to be questions and concerns from the contributors which is exactly why I started this conversation before the email went out. I know many people read the posts in this forum without commenting so to answer your specific question, I don't "view" that as a sign in any way.
I can assure you that I've been asking hard questions of the team and I genuinely believe this program has the potential to benefit contributors in several ways. I'll share a couple of key takeaways from my original questions here.
First, the contributors with content in the free collection were compensated in advance for their participation. While it's limited to select contributors now, we'll allow others to participate as time goes on. The content in the free collection will be rotating to keep it fresh and relevant. As content leaves the free collection, it returns to the paid collection.
Second, and I believe most importantly, if you browse the Adobe Stock free collection, you'll see that there are a lot of assets that cover a wide range of subjects, but no one particular subject has a deep selection to choose from. That is by design. When someone who typically only uses free sites visits Adobe Stock, they now have the opportunuity to see more search results beyond free. This is a potential customer base that was not visiting paid sites historically. The result should be an expanded market for paying customers.
I welcome your feedback and look forward to the conversation.
-Mat
What I see in the free vectors, searching within my niches, is simpler ripoffs of some of my illustrations. I'm sure if other illustrators look they'll find the same thing. So now I'm competing against someone who's copying my work and getting paid in advance to offer it for free and take sales from me.
Yay.
Who knows of a good, free alternative to Adobe Illustrator? I'd like to switch to that, and maybe it'll attract me to Adobe's product and I'll feel the sudden urge to pay for it instead of the free software.
@Shelma, respectully, the contributors participating in the initial launch of the free collection are top level, highly respected, very successful artists with a long standing reputation. The accusation they have stolen or copied your content or your niche without any specific information to back up your claim lacks credibility and substance in my opinion and is frankly beneath you. I'm open to any and all feedback and criticism but I won't accept baseless accusations of respected contributors. I would provide you with the same courtesy should the accusation be reversed.
I have always respected your feedback. Specifically, your abundant criticism of the contributor bonus program was heard loud and clear and as you likely know, this year we've made a change in which you can choose a single app including Illustrator for your complimentary subscription.
If you have a specific claim that your content was copied by one of these top artists included in the free collection, I would ask that you send me a personal email to [email protected] with specific details.
-Mat
-
Ouch. I mean, just call it rain.
The FAQ says: "Customers who want more options are offered additional paid content results." So either that is incorrect, or somebody dropped the ball or something.
The FAQ also says: "Content for the free collection is sourced in collaboration with a small group of Adobe Stock contributors who have all been compensated for these assets." That's not a selling point to me. I don't really care that someone else got money to hurt my chances of sales (although hopefully it's more than the $16 per image in the Google deal).
eta: from Pickerell: "Contracts were negotiated with each artist individually and the amount paid per asset varied. However, Adobe management specified that the price for each asset should be “at least above the annual RPI” of that asset. The price paid is for one-year use in the Free collection. Assets will be returned to the Paid collection within the coming year and replaced with new content. In this way free assets will vary over time to help the collection stay relevant and attract new customers while minimizing negative impacts to the company’s paid collection."
https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=8cf3a8f9-8795-4bc4-8ef8-d699da5f165e (https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=8cf3a8f9-8795-4bc4-8ef8-d699da5f165e)
It seems like there's enough content to satisfy anyone. 10K business images is a pretty good pot to pull from and cycling stuff in and out will just increase the depth of what's available.
The point of a "free" collection is to put the dross there and entice with the good stuff. But here, the good stuff is being given away. Diverse model shoots in authentic locations produced by factories? I mean we can't compete with that. Unsplash can't compete with that.
It's disappointing.
-
Pictures perhaps help show how completely invisible the paid content is when searching in the free section. I did some two and three word searches in the free section, and when nothing shows up, other searches in the free section, including "All" are shown rather than showing the content in the paid section that matches the search.
This really undercuts the message that the goal is to drive more business our way...
Click on the thumbnail to view a larger image:
(http://digitalbristles.com/temp/Palm%20Beach%20Aruba%20search-TN.jpg) (http://digitalbristles.com/temp/Palm%20Beach%20Aruba%20search-1800.jpg)
-
Hi,
The way I read it, AS buys from contributors, put it for a while in the free collection, the contributor got paid regardless of how many times the file was downloaded and when a “while” passes the file returns to the paid collection. So, I guess that can be a nice thing if it’s done fairly and call me naive but I trust AS. I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that “while” and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.
Am I missing something here?
I’ve been around since Fotolia days, this doesn’t seem bad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Pictures perhaps help show how completely invisible the paid content is when searching in the free section. I did some two and three word searches in the free section, and when nothing shows up, other searches in the free section, including "All" are shown rather than showing the content in the paid section that matches the search.
This really undercuts the message that the goal is to drive more business our way...
Click on the thumbnail to view a larger image:
([url]http://digitalbristles.com/temp/Palm%20Beach%20Aruba%20search-TN.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://digitalbristles.com/temp/Palm%20Beach%20Aruba%20search-1800.jpg[/url])
I reached out to the team with your original comment/suggestion Jo Ann, better visibility of the paid collection in free searches is on the roadmap and I expect changes will be made in the future.
thanks again,
Mat
-
Hi,
The way I read it, AS buys from contributors, put it for a while in the free collection, the contributor got paid regardless of how many times the file was downloaded and when a “while” passes the file returns to the paid collection. So, I guess that can be a nice thing if it’s done fairly and call me naive but I trust AS. I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that “while” and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.
Am I missing something here?
I’ve been around since Fotolia days, this doesn’t seem bad.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Thanks for the feedback Liorpt, that's my take too. To answer your questions, the free collection consists of the undiscovered gems as you've put it and not best sellers.
-Mat
-
Anyone can give our work away for free if you let them.
I see no benefit to contributors at all.
Where's the good news?
-
Ouch. I mean, just call it rain.
The FAQ says: "Customers who want more options are offered additional paid content results." So either that is incorrect, or somebody dropped the ball or something.
The FAQ also says: "Content for the free collection is sourced in collaboration with a small group of Adobe Stock contributors who have all been compensated for these assets." That's not a selling point to me. I don't really care that someone else got money to hurt my chances of sales (although hopefully it's more than the $16 per image in the Google deal).
eta: from Pickerell: "Contracts were negotiated with each artist individually and the amount paid per asset varied. However, Adobe management specified that the price for each asset should be “at least above the annual RPI” of that asset. The price paid is for one-year use in the Free collection. Assets will be returned to the Paid collection within the coming year and replaced with new content. In this way free assets will vary over time to help the collection stay relevant and attract new customers while minimizing negative impacts to the company’s paid collection."
https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=8cf3a8f9-8795-4bc4-8ef8-d699da5f165e (https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=8cf3a8f9-8795-4bc4-8ef8-d699da5f165e)
It seems like there's enough content to satisfy anyone. 10K business images is a pretty good pot to pull from and cycling stuff in and out will just increase the depth of what's available.
The point of a "free" collection is to put the dross there and entice with the good stuff. But here, the good stuff is being given away. Diverse model shoots in authentic locations produced by factories? I mean we can't compete with that. Unsplash can't compete with that.
It's disappointing.
Thanks for the feedback Sean. As always, I value your opinion very much. To your initial point which mirrors the sentiment Jo Ann shared, yes...visibility to the paid collection needs to improve and I've been told that it will. I have no reason to doubt this. It's an important factor for all parties involved. It's mutually beneficial between agency and contributor to drive the users of free content sites to the paid collection of Adobe Stock.
thanks again,
Mat
-
Anyone can give our work away for free if you let them.
I see no benefit to contributors at all.
Where's the good news?
I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you under the impression that your content specifically has been added to the free collection without your consent? I can assure you that is not the case. As noted in both the FAQ and my previous posts, the contributors with content in the collection at launch are highly trusted contributors that have been paid in advance for their participation.
Let me know if I misunderstood the question.
-Mat
-
This is particularly disheartening from a company that makes most of its money from the creative community. Since the advent of the internet there has been a continuous push to devalue the work of creative people — graphic designers, artists, musicians, photographers — but I did not expect Adobe to be a part of it. When everything is free online, who is going to pay all those monthly fees for Photoshop, Illustrator and Indesign?
This is the same short-sighted thinking that made a lot of money for wealthy shareholders in the short term, but destroyed the North American manufacturing industry in the long term.
Creative people need to get paid for their work. It's as simple as that.
Try telling a plumber that he needs to fix your toilet for free because it will be great exposure and maybe someone will pay him next time.
-
Not very happy about this. AS was becoming my main agency after fiasco at SS (where i have stopped uploading). This announcement just makes that less certain. Giving away for free says something to contributors that is quite unsavory for the future. Thanks for the heads up.
-
How about a royalty increase?
That would be: 'good news'.
The rest is just smoke n mirrors.
-
I remember there was an old thread titled "exciting news" from agencies. Now we got another portion of that. Starts always with the same promises and the result is predictable.
-
I would give a part of my images (200 of my 20k) for free to AdobeStock.
I would love to support AS. One of the last hopes i have for Microstock.
A nice to have would be, resize these free-images to 2500px. Big enough for customers but not big enough to re-sell or re-upload by thiefs. Full-size by payment only.
What i realy hate, some (not all) people complain about this concept or middle-tier sites but at the same time offer their images on "unlimited downloads" sites too. That is realy killing the business.
-
I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that “while” and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.
Will it always be the same chosen few who get paid? If so, it probably is a good deal for them.
Not so much for the unchosen rest of us.
-
I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that “while” and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.
Will it always be the same chosen few who get paid? If so, it probably is a good deal for them.
Not so much for the unchosen rest of us.
@Martha, no it won't always be the same artists. We will be continuously auditing and adjusting the collection as we move forward. Additional contributors will be invited to participate.
I can assure you, it's not just me reading your feedback. The team is actively listening and working on making this beneficial for all contributors.
-Mat
-
I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that “while” and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.
Will it always be the same chosen few who get paid? If so, it probably is a good deal for them.
Not so much for the unchosen rest of us.
I hope and assume that they will diversify, it just makes sense. Will all contributors take part? I assume not. If they want to buy good images that got buried for no reason, for a year and for an honest and fair price, which will be very low for images that have never sold...this can work if done fairly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If selected, can contributors opt out?
Many of us have some media that sells very well, regularly on many sites.
We certainly wouldn't want the main paid images given away for free anywhere as it'll clearly affect sales.
-
I guess it comes down to how much the contributors get paid and how long is that “while” and are they going for best sellers of undiscovered gems.
Will it always be the same chosen few who get paid? If so, it probably is a good deal for them.
Not so much for the unchosen rest of us.
I hope and assume that they will diversify, it just makes sense. Will all contributors take part? I assume not. If they want to buy good images that got buried for no reason, for a year and for an honest and fair price, which will be very low for images that have never sold...this can work if done fairly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don't want to speculate as to who, how or when additional contributors will be added so I can't answer this. When I know, I'll be sure to share here in the forum.
-Mat
-
If selected, can contributors opt out?
Many of us have some media that sells very well, regularly on many sites.
We certainly wouldn't want the main paid images given away for free anywhere as it'll clearly affect sales.
Yes
-
...I reached out to the team ... I expect changes will be made in the future.
Mat, I don't envy your situation, and I know you're relaying information on our behalf, but...
We - contributors - have heard a lot about things Adobe will be doing on the contributor side of things, but not much has been delivered. Getting the stats back to what Fotolia had, searching our portfolios (on the contributor side) by keywords, and on and on - you know the list, I know.
If we could get a commitment from the development team and a rough date for when these changes (to ensure paid content shows in free searches) would happen, that would make this more than "let's do lunch sometime". Jim Pickerell's article says "Adobe intends to monitor and fine tune the collection on a daily basis". It doesn't provide details, but if work is ongoing, let's make this less of a gut punch for existing contributors by keeping paid content visible.
If I were in a position to define what should happen, in addition to showing paid content in searches with very few results, I'd also say that every single page of search results of free images should have one row of paid content (preferably up top, but even below would be OK). IMO, there should never be any page without some paid content visible. You could make the paid content row smaller thumbnails if you wanted, but it should just be there somewhere so the site doesn't look like Unsplash.
-
I just don’t know which sites to recommend to my colleagues any more. Or whether it’s worth doing this any more. All the sites seem to be finding exciting ways to rip us off. You pull your work from iStock because they’re giving stuff away for a penny, and you concentrate on Shutterstock. Then Shutterstock slashes royalties, and you pull your work from SS and upload more to Adobe...only to have Adobe give away competing images for free. Pond5 and Alamy must be working on their own “exciting news“ now that we’ve migrated to them. But it’s a really fun year otherwise! Ha ha.
-
And so it starts....
-
I just don’t know which sites to recommend to my colleagues any more. Or whether it’s worth doing this any more. All the sites seem to be finding exciting ways to rip us off. You pull your work from iStock because they’re giving stuff away for a penny, and you concentrate on Shutterstock. Then Shutterstock slashes royalties, and you pull your work from SS and upload more to Adobe...only to have Adobe give away competing images for free. Pond5 and Alamy must be working on their own “exciting news“ now that we’ve migrated to them. But it’s a really fun year otherwise! Ha ha.
It's not worth doing stock any more... been like that for a while.
-
@MatHayward
Is there any download limit per day/week? Can someone download all 70.000 assets without any time limit if they want?
-
Free....many years ago I put an image on Can Stock as a free image. it stayed free for nearly a year. I guess I could of ask them to take it down. It was a picture of a football on fire. I think it was given away to the tune of 15,000 times. I never got any more sales by having a free picture on Can Stock. Then Can Stock is third tier at best. I really think free dose not work. If free worked the hookers down by the dock would give it away free. Good luck Adobe....
-
...I reached out to the team ... I expect changes will be made in the future.
Mat, I don't envy your situation, and I know you're relaying information on our behalf, but...
We - contributors - have heard a lot about things Adobe will be doing on the contributor side of things, but not much has been delivered. Getting the stats back to what Fotolia had, searching our portfolios (on the contributor side) by keywords, and on and on - you know the list, I know.
If we could get a commitment from the development team and a rough date for when these changes (to ensure paid content shows in free searches) would happen, that would make this more than "let's do lunch sometime". Jim Pickerell's article says "Adobe intends to monitor and fine tune the collection on a daily basis". It doesn't provide details, but if work is ongoing, let's make this less of a gut punch for existing contributors by keeping paid content visible.
If I were in a position to define what should happen, in addition to showing paid content in searches with very few results, I'd also say that every single page of search results of free images should have one row of paid content (preferably up top, but even below would be OK). IMO, there should never be any page without some paid content visible. You could make the paid content row smaller thumbnails if you wanted, but it should just be there somewhere so the site doesn't look like Unsplash.
Totally fair feedback and you're right. I'm not going to make promises on timelines for overdue portal fixes including statistics. I can promise you I'm bringing up these requests/needs every time it is appropriate to do so.
Regarding the improvement of paid collection integration into free collection, I'm confident this will happen VERY soon. I'm reluctant to make a specific date/time promise because anything can happen but clearly this is a necessary fix that will ultimately work to drive additional sales which as mentioned before, benefits all parties involved. It's a no-brainer and you have my word, it will be happening soon.
-Mat
-
Free....many years ago I put an image on Can Stock as a free image. it stayed free for nearly a year. I guess I could of ask them to take it down. It was a picture of a football on fire. I think it was given away to the tune of 15,000 times. I never got any more sales by having a free picture on Can Stock. Then Can Stock is third tier at best. I really think free dose not work. If free worked the hookers down by the dock would give it away free. Good luck Adobe....
You keep forgetting that Matt works for free because Adobe gives away all their products for free. My housing is also free just as my food and other living expenses. I also take pictures with my free camera and use my free computer to upload content via my free internet.
-
In my opinion this is way too many assets at way too high a quality level for a free collection. It would be one thing to offer a much smaller rotating collection of free content meant to showcase as many contributors as possible and actually highlight the paid content. This just looks like giving up and saying even Adobe apparently can't/won't stand up to the Pixabay crowd.
This line from the FAQ is particularly tone deaf to me:
Why does Adobe Stock offer a free collection? Won't it directly compete with the paid collection?
There is a growing demand for free content.
So what? There are always people who want everything for free. There is a growing demand for free software too, will there be a rotating free app in Creative Cloud each year? Adobe's contributors are also it's customers, and it certainly feels like a slap in the face to people who've paid thousands of dollars for Adobe apps over many years.
I feel a little silly now for singing Adobe's praises so loudly over the last year, and sending all my clients there. I was so pleased with all the open communication, the Discord communities, the webinars, the time and patience Mat spends here answering questions....but a move like this from the last agency I can say I actually trusted is just exhausting and deeply disheartening.
I've patiently explained to people countless times the advantages of properly licensing images from a trusted agency over downloading from the free sites. This just muddies the waters further for people who think all images should be free in the first place.
-
@MatHayward
Is there any download limit per day/week? Can someone download all 70.000 assets without any time limit if they want?
@theendup...yes, there is a download limit. For customers without a paid subscription or credits, they are limited to a maximum of 100 downloads per day. This number is subject to change as we gather more data on customer behavior.
Thanks for the question.
-Mat
-
Well... maybe the free collection is the reason why my sales dropped to almost "zero" during the last 2 weeks... 4x 0.33 sales last week, 1x 0,33 sale this week.
Or maybe the search pattern has been changed due to the new announced collection, who knows...
Am I getting the following questions right:
(a) Only handpicked (by Adobe) contributors can show their content in the free collection or can anyone offer images there?
(b) The free collection should attract new customers to AdobeStock, so Adobe is trying to get new people with free images to their site and make those people pay for images in the future? (Has this ever worked somewhere?)
(c) Free Download is limited to 100 downloads per day per user? Who would need more than 3000 images a month, why pay if you can get them for free?
Thanks :)
-
...I reached out to the team ... I expect changes will be made in the future.
Mat, I don't envy your situation, and I know you're relaying information on our behalf, but...
We - contributors - have heard a lot about things Adobe will be doing on the contributor side of things, but not much has been delivered. Getting the stats back to what Fotolia had, searching our portfolios (on the contributor side) by keywords, and on and on - you know the list, I know.
If we could get a commitment from the development team and a rough date for when these changes (to ensure paid content shows in free searches) would happen, that would make this more than "let's do lunch sometime". Jim Pickerell's article says "Adobe intends to monitor and fine tune the collection on a daily basis". It doesn't provide details, but if work is ongoing, let's make this less of a gut punch for existing contributors by keeping paid content visible.
If I were in a position to define what should happen, in addition to showing paid content in searches with very few results, I'd also say that every single page of search results of free images should have one row of paid content (preferably up top, but even below would be OK). IMO, there should never be any page without some paid content visible. You could make the paid content row smaller thumbnails if you wanted, but it should just be there somewhere so the site doesn't look like Unsplash.
They were much too busy cutting deals with a few contributors and setting up a free section to have time to make any improvements for the rest of us.
-
In my opinion this is way too many assets at way too high a quality level for a free collection. It would be one thing to offer a much smaller rotating collection of free content meant to showcase as many contributors as possible and actually highlight the paid content. This just looks like giving up and saying even Adobe apparently can't/won't stand up to the Pixabay crowd.
This line from the FAQ is particularly tone deaf to me:
Why does Adobe Stock offer a free collection? Won't it directly compete with the paid collection?
There is a growing demand for free content.
So what? There are always people who want everything for free. There is a growing demand for free software too, will there be a rotating free app in Creative Cloud each year? Adobe's contributors are also it's customers, and it certainly feels like a slap in the face to people who've paid thousands of dollars for Adobe apps over many years.
I feel a little silly now for singing Adobe's praises so loudly over the last year, and sending all my clients there. I was so pleased with all the open communication, the Discord communities, the webinars, the time and patience Mat spends here answering questions....but a move like this from the last agency I can say I actually trusted is just exhausting and deeply disheartening.
I've patiently explained to people countless times the advantages of properly licensing images from a trusted agency over downloading from the free sites. This just muddies the waters further for people who think all images should be free in the first place.
I'm really sorry you feel that way Amanda. I have no intention of lowering my threshold for contributor advocacy and will continue to answer as many questions as I can in as transparent a way possible here in MSG, in the Adobe Stock Contributor Discord channel, in the Adobe Stock contributor forum, in the webinars, my personal social media, frankly anywhere and everywhere people will listen to what I have to say. In other words, I respect your position and the opinions you have shared in your post and I will do everything I can to see to it your faith is restored and that you will again be singing the praises of Adobe soon.
I've seen a number of tongue-in-cheek comments here about Adobe giving away software. I would like to remind you that we have given away tens of thousands of complimentary subscriptions through the Adobe Stock contributor Bonus Progam over the past couple of years and that we are continuing the tradition again with the 2020 program. So to answer your specific question... yes, for productive contributors Adobe is giving away a free app each year. If qualified, you can choose which app you want so technically, that could be considered a rotating app should you want it to be. I'm not trying to make light of your point but rather am pointing out that we've put a lot of heart-felt effort into making sure contributors know how much they are appreciated and to do so, we are willing to make considerable investments.
On that note, there was another big announcement from Adobe Stock today. While the other offical announcement was in tandem with the free collection, I feel it warrants a separate thread and conversation and will be posting about it here shortly.
Thanks again for the feedback. It is important for us to hear.
Mat
-
I must admit I'm not very excited by these exciting news!
Any free content is adding fuel in the race to the bottom.
-
I see when I go to stock.adobe.com not signed in, the default search is “free.”
-
Well... maybe the free collection is the reason why my sales dropped to almost "zero" during the last 2 weeks... 4x 0.33 sales last week, 1x 0,33 sale this week.
Or maybe the search pattern has been changed due to the new announced collection, who knows...
Am I getting the following questions right:
(a) Only handpicked (by Adobe) contributors can show their content in the free collection or can anyone offer images there?
(b) The free collection should attract new customers to AdobeStock, so Adobe is trying to get new people with free images to their site and make those people pay for images in the future? (Has this ever worked somewhere?)
(c) Free Download is limited to 100 downloads per day per user? Who would need more than 3000 images a month, why pay if you can get them for free?
Thanks :)
Thanks for the questions. To your first point. At the moment, I'm writing this the free collection has been available for 6 hours and 55 minutes. It has not impacted the sales of any contributors in any way prior to 8AM PST today.
a) Yes, you are correct. Only a small number of contributors has content in the free collection at this time. It's not open to submissions from other contributors right now but that will likely change in the future.
b) Yes, that's the plan. The free only sites are attracting a lot of potential customers. Our goal is to showcase Adobe Stock content and educate them on the value of having a safe license on released content. The end goal is to attract them to the larger, paid collection to entice them to purchase licenses for content outside the free collection. I don't know the answer to the second part of your question.
c) As to the download limit, it's a fluid process and as mentioned is subject to change as the data comes in. "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?" you ask? There is a wider selection of milk in the paid section...almond milk, coconut milk, rice milk, goat milk, pea milk (????), soy milk and even hemp milk (yes, I Googled this to make my point). You get the idea. Sure the cows milk is good, but is it perfect for your needs? I switched to Almond milk from cows milk and haven't had an issue paying more for it. It better suits my needs. I believe people that traditionally download free content will see the alternative options available in the paid collection and be willing to pay for them too.
Mat
-
I see when I go to stock.adobe.com not signed in, the default search is “free.”
I looked into this Shelma with various computers and browsers. Based on an informal look into it, the default appears to be set by your previous search parameters. If you do a search with "All" then click out entirely and go back, you'll find "All" to be your default search parameter.
Thanks for raising this with me.
-Mat
-
After reading Adobe's announcement, i wanted to measure the demand of free photo sites.
I used similarweb.com for my quick search. According to similarweb.com; unsplash.com had 34.4 million, pixabay had 40.87 million and pexels.com had 27.17 million visitors between august 20th and september 20th.
In the same time period; dreamstime had 23.36, istockphoto had 31.83, pond5 had 2.14 and shutterstock had 67.63 million visitors.
I just wanted to leave this note here in case anyone is curious.
-
When I go to the doctor, the first thing they ask me--"Who is your insurance carrier"? No insurance you will not get service ist class. So, why should I not get paid for my creative work? I am a professional musician (Trumpet) and a retired music professor with a PHD in music and also the Ist Grand Prize winner in the Smithsonian Magazine Photocontest. To make the story short. What goes around comes around. So don't worry be happy.---Oscar Williams--Karma is a Bit##.
-
Thanks for the answer Mat, your efforts here and everywhere you communicate truly are appreciated.
You make a fair point about the free subscriptions that are given away, between that and things like the creative residency programs there is definitely a lot that Adobe gives back to the community that you don't see from other companies.
I guess the part that worries me most is with it seeming like every site is moving in the direction of either cheaper images, lower commissions and/or free image sections I worry about being able to pay the other bills even if we manage to earn the software for free.
I'm not totally opposed to the idea of giving some things away, I've done it on my own sites occasionally for promotion, done free projects for charity and even contributed a few times to some open source projects. Free can be good when done right for sure.
It's just the size and quality of this free collection and the fact that the main exposure of it seems like it will be limited to those artists who are hand picked that makes this feel more like a threat to potential sales than a benefit if that makes sense. I will be watching for updates though, maybe if promotion of the paid content is worked in more efficiently it will be okay.
Also I'd love to see more details about the plans to educate free image users on licensing content. That sounds like a nice idea but in my experience it's really tough to turn someone looking for free goods into a paying customer without a really clearly defined plan.
-
Well... maybe the free collection is the reason why my sales dropped to almost "zero" during the last 2 weeks... 4x 0.33 sales last week, 1x 0,33 sale this week.
Or maybe the search pattern has been changed due to the new announced collection, who knows...
Am I getting the following questions right:
(a) Only handpicked (by Adobe) contributors can show their content in the free collection or can anyone offer images there?
(b) The free collection should attract new customers to AdobeStock, so Adobe is trying to get new people with free images to their site and make those people pay for images in the future? (Has this ever worked somewhere?)
(c) Free Download is limited to 100 downloads per day per user? Who would need more than 3000 images a month, why pay if you can get them for free?
Thanks :)
Thanks for the questions. To your first point. At the moment, I'm writing this the free collection has been available for 6 hours and 55 minutes. It has not impacted the sales of any contributors in any way prior to 8AM PST today.
a) Yes, you are correct. Only a small number of contributors has content in the free collection at this time. It's not open to submissions from other contributors right now but that will likely change in the future.
b) Yes, that's the plan. The free only sites are attracting a lot of potential customers. Our goal is to showcase Adobe Stock content and educate them on the value of having a safe license on released content. The end goal is to attract them to the larger, paid collection to entice them to purchase licenses for content outside the free collection. I don't know the answer to the second part of your question.
c) As to the download limit, it's a fluid process and as mentioned is subject to change as the data comes in. "Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free?" you ask? There is a wider selection of milk in the paid section...almond milk, coconut milk, rice milk, goat milk, pea milk (????), soy milk and even hemp milk (yes, I Googled this to make my point). You get the idea. Sure the cows milk is good, but is it perfect for your needs? I switched to Almond milk from cows milk and haven't had an issue paying more for it. It better suits my needs. I believe people that traditionally download free content will see the alternative options available in the paid collection and be willing to pay for them too.
Mat
Thanks a lot for your answers and your time, which cannot be taken for granted
(hopyfully my english is not going wring here)
I really hope this will lead to a success for Adobe and for all of us contributors, but I doubt that.
Lately there hasn't been any kind of good news for contributors within the stockfoto/video area - we will see :-)
Thanks, Michael
-
When I go to the doctor, the first thing they ask me--"Who is your insurance carrier"? No insurance you will not get service ist class. So, why should I not get paid for my creative work? I am a professional musician (Trumpet) and a retired music professor with a PHD in music and also the Ist Grand Prize winner in the Smithsonian Magazine Photocontest. To make the story short. What goes around comes around. So don't worry be happy.---Oscar Williams--Karma is a Bit##.
Thanks for writing Oscar. I think you may have misunderstood the announcement and FAQ. Your work is not being given away for free. There is a select number of artists that were invited to participate in the free collection. These participating contributors were paid in advance for the temporary use of their content in the free collection.
Any time content is downloaded from your portfolio, you will receive a royalty as has always been the case.
If anyone missed the original link to the details of the program and how it impacts contributors from my original post, here it is again: https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/free-collection-contributor-information.html
Thanks again,
Mat
-
Clearly everyone's work will not be free. But if I read correctly at 100 download images a day for free it will effect many of the sellers work. I guess it will help photoshop users as they can get images off the cloud for free. That is a great deal in creating work on Photoshop. (Free) Sounds like a good deal for Photoshop and maybe not so good for stock image creators.
-
Clearly everyone's work will not be free. But if I read correctly at 100 download images a day for free it will effect many of the sellers work. I guess it will help photoshop users as they can get images off the cloud for free. That is a great deal in creating work on Photoshop. (Free) Sounds like a good deal for Photoshop and maybe not so good for stock image creators.
Of course time will tell but I hope to prove you wrong about the impact on contributors.
Thanks for the comments,
Mat
-
Matt I do have a question. Why did Adobe choice 100 free downloads a day. That seems excessive to me. For free not to hurt stock contributors the 100 free images a day seems a lot. If someone wanted to create a free image collection they could conceivably get 36,400 images a year. In my opinion maybe 5 free images a day would be a better number. Then I am just an image maker and not the owner of Adobe. I do own some Wall Street stock in Adobe which has made some money for me....maybe this will get the Wall street Adobe stock growing....A full glass if you look at it in the right light.
-
Matt I do have a question. Why did Adobe choice 100 free downloads a day. That seems excessive to me. For free not to hurt stock contributors the 100 free images a day seems a lot. If someone wanted to create a free image collection they could conceivably get 36,400 images a year. In my opinion maybe 5 free images a day would be a better number. Then I am just an image maker and not the owner of Adobe. I do own some Wall Street stock in Adobe which has made some money for me....maybe this will get the Wall street Adobe stock growing....A full glass if you look at it in the right light.
I don't know the answer to that question. It's a starting point that will likely evolve as the customer behavior data rolls in. I don't have enough information right now to have an informed opinion on the number of downloads allowed in a day but I'll keep you posted as I learn more.
-Mat
-
Matt thanks, a fair answer. I do hope they lower the 100 a day...
-
Hi Matt,
I like adobe but this was tried so many times without success. usually it ends bad to contributors.
But i got idea that i like to share: Adobe pays me 1 year salary and i work 1 year for adobe. Like sw engineers work, my work becomes Adobe property. I don't write code but i write with light so during that period i do exclusive whatever footage/images adobe wants and company can sell/give it away to clients. It could be an alternative, no?
regards
-
Where do I exactly find that free collection. Been looking for it but could not see it anywhere.
As for the news I've stopped bothering because I know where to get all the Adobe software for free as well. So you sabotage our work and I sabotage yours. I think it's fair.
-
I've seen a number of tongue-in-cheek comments here about Adobe giving away software. I would like to remind you that we have given away tens of thousands of complimentary subscriptions through the Adobe Stock contributor Bonus Progam over the past couple of years and that we are continuing the tradition again with the 2020 program. So to answer your specific question... yes, for productive contributors Adobe is giving away a free app each year.
Mat, I think your comparison is lacking. I appreciate very much that Adobe is having the bonus programm. It's a nice bonus, but it's not "given away for free". It's tied to a condition. The condition that we contributors manage to sell a certain amount of images or footage and therefore the condition is that we earn Adobe a certain amount of money. We earn you money, you give us a bonus for that.
The proper comparison to the free image collection would be: If a customer downloads 100 paid images, he gets 1 image for free. That would be a more accurate comparison. He earns you money, he gets a bonus in return. That's how our bonus program works. But you are giving away free images without any conditions. The "customer" doesn't have to do anything to get the free images, while we contributors have to earn you money to get the "free" softwear. Two rather different things, don't you think?
My overall opinion on this free image collection is: I do believe Adobe did this with a good intention and not to screw contributors over. After all, if we don't benefit from this, neither do they, so they really believe it will boost sales.
However, I believe the selection of free images is way too large and don't think it will have the desired effect of more paid customers. I have a fear it might be the opposite. With such a huge collection of free high quaity images, I don't think people who usually don't pay for images will be motivated to do so now. It just means more free content to pick from for them after all. But people who have paid for images in the past might think "Why should I pay if they give away so many great pictures for free?". Other stock agencies have one free image a week or even month, not thousands of them.
I hope Adobe will monitor customer behavior closely in regards of whether peope who get free content also start buying paid content and will make the right decision to back down from this whole free collection again if they see that it does not work out as intended and I hope that by then the damage done won't be too big. People who have gotten used to getting high quality work for free will have a hard time adjusting to the thought that they should pay for it again and might just search elsewhere for free images instead of getting back to paying for content.
-
Good news for the fortunate few added to the collection bad for the rest of us. Its really that simple. I can't really understand Adobe paying for images with actual money in the hope someone looking for free images will decide to pay for others. Sounds like a desperate gamble to me.
"We expect this collection will help educate and convert users of free content into responsible buyers," I expect it will educate users that there is free content out there and if they can't find what they want on Adobe they will look elsewhere.
-
All this will do is is hijack sales from the non free content at AS. Pond5 removed the web size format because the cheaper format was hijacking sales from the higher priced HD sales there, their data showed untapped sales potential of $millions, and this is a similar scenario. Tom Spota did a similar venture at SS some time ago when he was employed at SS, buying clips outright from contributors to sell cheap on their site and their partner sites, they only wanted clips that had sold constantly over the time it was live on the SS system, this was to try and curb the prevalence of the rise of the cheaper stock sites out there, it didn't work. For this to be implemented with issues that has already been raised by Jo Ann Snover, it appears to me as being a rushed and ill thought out concept or that it's conclusion is a marketing gimmick for Adobes CC photography software.
"subscribe to our CC and and have access to 100 free high quality stock photos, vectors etc per day!"
Video clips will be next folks.
Never fall for marketing speak, it's a twin to political speak.
-
Thanks for stepping up and explaining the news to us. Unfortunately this is not good news for contributors. It is a key for survival for Adobe (that we should remember has their main business model in licensing software and not selling stock). Every other site is lowering the bar, cutting commissions and giving away for nothing or peanuts. I get it, we are all in survival mode.
I would like my opinion on the only way out I see and have seen since many years. The dreaded word for many -exclusivity- of content. Right now the main differentiation is service but content is the same everywhere. A license can give a little more, search engine can be a little better but the apples are the same brand wherever you go. This will put always the ball on the buyers roof and not sellers. Monopolies and unique designs thrive for a reason, the handlebar is controlled by sellers.
I think agencies like Getty have known this for years, new ones like Stocksy got this from the beginning, Pond5 is also realizing that stopping the race to bottom prices the content has to be available only by one distributor. Shutterstock opted to cut prices(subs) and now commissions to contributors, others now are digging deeper in free content but this is not going to work, it might attract a few extra sales but it will definitely do more harm that good.
If Adobe or any other agency wants to start to have control over their pricing, content has to be the main differentiating point. When that is the case for most agencies, we might somewhere in the future regain reasonable prices for creative content.
-
This only works for customer that never will pay for any photo. When stockphoto is not profitable more, i dont need photoshop, gimball, expensive lenses or camera...
Is a wrong move. Only benefit big people...
-
Current customers who already know and use AdobeStock now have a free option. I find it very hard to believe that the loss of sales for us will be compensated by increased customers who currently use free sites and magically see the light of paying for content. Perhaps more likely will be new customers from other microstock sites where we will lose sales… I wonder if this is this really about competition between microstock sites where anything we may (or may not) gain is lost elsewhere.
-
I just checked this free section.
If the purpose of this was to drive customers towards the paying collection, the search results would include some paying images. This is so obvious to everyone here that the lack of paying images in the search can't be an error.
I'm afraid that the real purpose of this free section is a test to something else. Probably something like all our images free for Adobe sofware suscribers (with may be a paying premium collection).
This is really bad news.
-
After running away from iStock and, not so long ago Shutterstock, maybe it's time to run away from Adobe Stock as well, and all the crap from Microsctock ...
-
This step only damage the marketability of paid content even at other microstock agencies. Free content will cannibalize from paid content, and ultimately simply harms the content creators. This kind of promotion has never excelled in functionality for all involved. The functional model is the one that offers: Buy YX amount and get XY for free. But if you offer almost 70k free stuff(and allow 100 downloads per day) without any further restriction, where is the motivation for buying paid content? Among the 70k free stuff, there is almost always something that can be used instead of paid content. This does not provide a better chance of gaining a new buyers of paid content, but on the contrary, this step can dramatically reduce sales of paid content. And what is worse, not only at Adobe, but very simply it can hit sales on other microstock agencies. Adobe alone can make a profit from it, but for creators this can be a total disaster. I would very much like to be wrong in this regard but unfortunately this will probably not be the case.
I don't want to be a negativist, but if the sales of the creators will fall down thanks to this(a lot of creators are already affected by current events in the world), so many do not even qualify for the free Adobe CC products. Thus, creators' spending will increase again, while revenues are flying sharply down.
I feel sad as I watch where the entire microstock market is heading.
-
@MatHayward
Is there any download limit per day/week? Can someone download all 70.000 assets without any time limit if they want?
@theendup...yes, there is a download limit. For customers without a paid subscription or credits, they are limited to a maximum of 100 downloads per day. This number is subject to change as we gather more data on customer behavior.
Thanks for the question.
-Mat
100 free downloads a day? That is way too much, I'd limit that to about 10 images per day. Whoever needs more images per day should be able to pay for it.
-
So let me ask, if I am getting this right:
-> Any one with a CC account (I myself use a Photoshop/Lightroom account) is now able to download 100 images per day with each image covering the full lifetime commercial use license? Do those free images cover extended license as well?
-
Good news for the fortunate few added to the collection bad for the rest of us. Its really that simple. I can't really understand Adobe paying for images with actual money in the hope someone looking for free images will decide to pay for others. Sounds like a desperate gamble to me.
"We expect this collection will help educate and convert users of free content into responsible buyers," I expect it will educate users that there is free content out there and if they can't find what they want on Adobe they will look elsewhere.
It doesn't make sense for me either. It's like reeducating a thief by giving him more free stuff of even better quality than he's used to. I know the agencies are getting desperate seeing the current trend towards "all for free" media but going ways that are proven not to work is just so silly and uninspired.
-
Video clips will be next folks.
From the original Adobe email: "The collection will initially include a limited set of 70,000 free photos, vectors, illustrations, and videos now available on Adobe Stock."
Videos are already included (see image)
-
So when you sign up as a customer, can you simply sign up for a free account and just download free images, or do you have to also have a paid plan to get access? I can understand a small free section, as a promotion to paying customers, but not as an alternative to purchasing a plan. Wouldn't it be so much better to offer a 'buy 5, get one free' kind of deal?
Agree with the others that 100 free images a day is way too many but, if Adobe have already struck a deal, (and paid contributors to include free images), then they have already crunched the numbers to calculate the financial benefits to them. They are unlikely to change one of the variables any time soon.
I had really hoped that Adobe would rise above all the 'great news' Microstock deals. As a company with a more diverse offering, they are better placed than the pure microstock sites in these difficult times.
But, it's tough times for all of us, and it would be so much easier to deal with all of this if the companies recognised the value of contributors and their assets. Adobe has been the best at this for quite some time, so let's hope they don't go down the slippery slope of forgetting who provides them with a product to sell, (or give away).
-
Thanks JustAnImage
The same stunt Tom Spota pulled when he was at ShutterStock, and it seems he is doing the same thing again at Adobe Stock, it's no coincidence that Adobe stopped support for their stock on Twitter either, seeing how the storm developed with ShutterGate. All to drive more traffic to their software subscription, nothing to do with driving more sales towards the stock side. Again if it was to drive more sales towards stock, they would have included paid content along with the free stock landing page, not after the fact, this is Adobe not a third rate website, marketing is their speciality. And this must have been discussed and planned long before it was implemented.
Again these free stock assets will have been picked because they are good sellers in the paid market, reduces the risk of Adobe losing out, and raises the risk of us losing out.
As it has been said before in this thread, it's all smoke and mirrors.
-
What a depressing news. It has been said countless times before, but:
STOP DEVALUING OUR WORK! Customers already consider graphics and video as something cheap. Don't push it further.
Any attempt to drive traffic using free content sends the wrong message that photos/vectors/video are a cheap commodity, cheap to produce and that artists are only hobbyists doing it for fun and exposure.
However agencies refuse to listen to us, because THEIR revenue, their traffic and their shareholders are more important than the artists.
This once againshows that not a single agency out there is our friend, and they're all in it for themselves, not for the artists.
-
I've seen a number of tongue-in-cheek comments here about Adobe giving away software. I would like to remind you that we have given away tens of thousands of complimentary subscriptions through the Adobe Stock contributor Bonus Progam over the past couple of years and that we are continuing the tradition again with the 2020 program. So to answer your specific question... yes, for productive contributors Adobe is giving away a free app each year.
Not wanting to sound ungrateful for two years of free subscription on Adobe CC, but to be eligible we all had to actively produce and upload content to meet the requirements. So Adobe didn't really give it away for free, they received much more content and thus more revenue from active contributors.
-
I get it, we are all in survival mode.
We may be, but Adobe isn't. Their stock price has soared this year. https://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?symb=ADBE
-
I just feel sad that within six months we have all gone from 'which site do you like the most' to 'which site do you dislike the least'.
In an ideal world, we would all pull our ports and go exclusive with Dreamstime, as they seem to be the only site that hasn't actively scr***d us over in some way or another.
-
When customers download free content from Adobe, we have an opportunity to educate these users—many of them new to stock—about licenses, copyright, and respect for artists’ content.
This is the part that hurts the most, they are talking to us like to idiots. Many people (social media) never heard/cared about copyright, in many countries copyright laws don't exist, what is there to educate?
However, they are making thieves' job much easier by legally downloading images and uploading them as their own to other agencies. It is happening all the time, portfolios consisting of free images taken from Unsp*ash, Pixa*ay, Pix*els.....were reported on SS several times but nobody cares.
-
Just another example of why we have to start our own agency and stop contributing to agencies that ignore the amount of effort we put into our work.
-
It seems this is a great year for bad news. They just can't stop coming.
Everything is going from cheap to cheaper to free.
-
Game over.
-
I've seen a number of tongue-in-cheek comments here about Adobe giving away software. I would like to remind you that we have given away tens of thousands of complimentary subscriptions through the Adobe Stock contributor Bonus Progam over the past couple of years and that we are continuing the tradition again with the 2020 program. So to answer your specific question... yes, for productive contributors Adobe is giving away a free app each year.
Mat, I think your comparison is lacking. I appreciate very much that Adobe is having the bonus programm. It's a nice bonus, but it's not "given away for free". It's tied to a condition. The condition that we contributors manage to sell a certain amount of images or footage and therefore the condition is that we earn Adobe a certain amount of money. We earn you money, you give us a bonus for that.
The proper comparison to the free image collection would be: If a customer downloads 100 paid images, he gets 1 image for free. That would be a more accurate comparison. He earns you money, he gets a bonus in return. That's how our bonus program works. But you are giving away free images without any conditions. The "customer" doesn't have to do anything to get the free images, while we contributors have to earn you money to get the "free" softwear. Two rather different things, don't you think?
My overall opinion on this free image collection is: I do believe Adobe did this with a good intention and not to screw contributors over. After all, if we don't benefit from this, neither do they, so they really believe it will boost sales.
However, I believe the selection of free images is way too large and don't think it will have the desired effect of more paid customers. I have a fear it might be the opposite. With such a huge collection of free high quaity images, I don't think people who usually don't pay for images will be motivated to do so now. It just means more free content to pick from for them after all. But people who have paid for images in the past might think "Why should I pay if they give away so many great pictures for free?". Other stock agencies have one free image a week or even month, not thousands of them.
I hope Adobe will monitor customer behavior closely in regards of whether peope who get free content also start buying paid content and will make the right decision to back down from this whole free collection again if they see that it does not work out as intended and I hope that by then the damage done won't be too big. People who have gotten used to getting high quality work for free will have a hard time adjusting to the thought that they should pay for it again and might just search elsewhere for free images instead of getting back to paying for content.
Point taken Firn, you are right. It's not apples to apples. Just noting the multiple references implying Adobe would never give away software.
To your second point, yes, of course we will be monitoring this very closely every day.
Thanks for your feedback,
Mat
-
So let me ask, if I am getting this right:
-> Any one with a CC account (I myself use a Photoshop/Lightroom account) is now able to download 100 images per day with each image covering the full lifetime commercial use license? Do those free images cover extended license as well?
No to both questions. You don't need to be a Creative Cloud member to use Adobe Stock. You must have an Adobe ID. The images come with a standard license.
Thanks for your questions,
Mat
-
I've seen a number of tongue-in-cheek comments here about Adobe giving away software. I would like to remind you that we have given away tens of thousands of complimentary subscriptions through the Adobe Stock contributor Bonus Progam over the past couple of years and that we are continuing the tradition again with the 2020 program. So to answer your specific question... yes, for productive contributors Adobe is giving away a free app each year.
Not wanting to sound ungrateful for two years of free subscription on Adobe CC, but to be eligible we all had to actively produce and upload content to meet the requirements. So Adobe didn't really give it away for free, they received much more content and thus more revenue from active contributors.
This is very true and I apologize if my comments implied that I believed otherwise. That wasn't my intent. My personal belief is the bonus program is mutually beneficial.
-Mat
-
To all on this forum. Who is a competitor to Photoshop software. Is their any ?
-
Recap of conversation last few posts:
Any one with a CC account (I myself use a Photoshop/Lightroom account) is now able to download 100 images per day with each image covering the full lifetime commercial use license?
No....
Oh thank God
...You don't need to be a Creative Cloud member to use Adobe Stock.
*faint sounds of sobbing*
Thanks for your questions
-
So let me ask, if I am getting this right:
-> Any one with a CC account (I myself use a Photoshop/Lightroom account) is now able to download 100 images per day with each image covering the full lifetime commercial use license? Do those free images cover extended license as well?
No to both questions. You don't need to be a Creative Cloud member to use Adobe Stock. You must have an Adobe ID. The images come with a standard license.
Thanks for your questions,
Mat
So anyone who has an Adboe ID, (such as creating an account for a free trial of Photoshop and never paying any money for any product to Adobe in any way), can now get 100 free images a day?
Am I reading that right?
-
Is there anywhere where we can read about the Licensing terms for the free images, I couldn't find it.
Is there uses they cannot be used for such as Print on demand etc?
-
Is there anywhere where we can read about the Licensing terms for the free images, I couldn't find it.
Is there uses they cannot be used for such as Print on demand etc?
It’s the regular standard license. Which is crazy. Even Getty made their “free” editorial images come in a labeled box with rules.
Even worse, videos come with an extended license. For free.
-
So let me ask, if I am getting this right:
-> Any one with a CC account (I myself use a Photoshop/Lightroom account) is now able to download 100 images per day with each image covering the full lifetime commercial use license? Do those free images cover extended license as well?
No to both questions. You don't need to be a Creative Cloud member to use Adobe Stock. You must have an Adobe ID. The images come with a standard license.
Mat
Thanks again for your answers!
So you only need to have an Adobe ID, which makes it even worse in my opinion :o
-
After the 'exciting news' from SS I actually steered a some buyers to Adobe to purchase images.
That won't be happening again.
-
To all on this forum. Who is a competitor to Photoshop software. Is their any ?
Affinity Photo. Very good, one time price (not subscription based).
-
I just feel sad that within six months we have all gone from 'which site do you like the most' to 'which site do you dislike the least'.
In an ideal world, we would all pull our ports and go exclusive with Dreamstime, as they seem to be the only site that hasn't actively scr***d us over in some way or another.
yea, but we went from "iStock is best" (some years ago now!) to "SS is best!" to "Adobe is best!" and we don't know what DT, who were hasbeens for a long time and still show low earnings ratings on the poll (take with a pinch of salt) has in future plans.
What Adobe haven't said is what concrete info they have onhow many free users actually convert to paying users. My gut tells me 'not many'.
-
So let me ask, if I am getting this right:
-> Any one with a CC account (I myself use a Photoshop/Lightroom account) is now able to download 100 images per day with each image covering the full lifetime commercial use license? Do those free images cover extended license as well?
No to both questions. You don't need to be a Creative Cloud member to use Adobe Stock. You must have an Adobe ID. The images come with a standard license.
Thanks for your questions,
Mat
So anyone who has an Adboe ID, (such as creating an account for a free trial of Photoshop and never paying any money for any product to Adobe in any way), can now get 100 free images a day?
Am I reading that right?
I don't think so. I think he is saying anyone can sign up for Adobe Stock and the free images, trial or no trial. I know it took me a minute to wrap my head around it, because it's horrific, but there it is.
-
I just feel sad that within six months we have all gone from 'which site do you like the most' to 'which site do you dislike the least'.
In an ideal world, we would all pull our ports and go exclusive with Dreamstime, as they seem to be the only site that hasn't actively scr***d us over in some way or another.
yea, but we went from "iStock is best" (some years ago now!) to "SS is best!" to "Adobe is best!" and we don't know what DT, who were hasbeens for a long time and still show low earnings ratings on the poll (take with a pinch of salt) has in future plans.
What Adobe haven't said is what concrete info they have onhow many free users actually convert to paying users. My gut tells me 'not many'.
I'm guessing a lot less than the paying users who will now turn into free users.
-
I'm guessing a lot less than the paying users who will now turn into free users.
That seems like the only reasonable thing to assume.
After all, if just by signing up at Adobe one can get 100 x 30 = 3,000 free photos per month x 12 = 36,000 free photos per year…
Why on earth would one even bother looking at the other images that are not free???
Geez.
-
I just feel sad that within six months we have all gone from 'which site do you like the most' to 'which site do you dislike the least'.
In an ideal world, we would all pull our ports and go exclusive with Dreamstime, as they seem to be the only site that hasn't actively scr***d us over in some way or another.
yea, but we went from "iStock is best" (some years ago now!) to "SS is best!" to "Adobe is best!" and we don't know what DT, who were hasbeens for a long time and still show low earnings ratings on the poll (take with a pinch of salt) has in future plans.
What Adobe haven't said is what concrete info they have onhow many free users actually convert to paying users. My gut tells me 'not many'.
DT has done their fair share of screwing contributors over the years, too. They all work the same way.
-
As long as the free content is not enough to satisfy customers' needs, they might still pay for our content.
But we all know how it went with Storyblocks: a free 'Unlimited' section with a 'Premium' content marketplace. For a while we did get Marketplace sales. Eventually, the free 'Unlimited' section would grow to such an extent and quality level, they could remove the Marketplace altogether.
Not saying that this is Adobe's endgame, but this premium freebies mentality is showing how agencies like to cater to customers looking for free or cheap, instead of premium buyers. It's once again the race to the bottom.
I predict that it won't be long before all major agencies have shifted towards unlimited downloads and artists get a "percentage of the rewards pool". Then it's game over for us microstock artists.
-
The fact that Adobe are giving away free images has to affect some contributors that could possibly have made a sale not just on Adobe, but on other sites.
-
To all on this forum. Who is a competitor to Photoshop software. Is their any ?
Affinity Photo. Very good, one time price (not subscription based).
Also, if you want something similar to PS you can buy PS Elements on disc. If you want for video too, there is a PSE + Premiere elements bundle too (one time payment). If you decide for this, buy it from Amazon, it is easier and I had free shipping (of the disc) too: https://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-Elements-2020-Premiere/dp/B07X4RR19R/ref=sr_1_2?crid=W4G5LO7W5SKO&dchild=1&keywords=adobe+photoshop+elements+2020+%26+premiere+elements+2020&qid=1602775159&sprefix=Adobe+Photoshop+Elements+2020+%2B%2Caps%2C295&sr=8-2 (https://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Photoshop-Elements-2020-Premiere/dp/B07X4RR19R/ref=sr_1_2?crid=W4G5LO7W5SKO&dchild=1&keywords=adobe+photoshop+elements+2020+%26+premiere+elements+2020&qid=1602775159&sprefix=Adobe+Photoshop+Elements+2020+%2B%2Caps%2C295&sr=8-2)
-
To all on this forum. Who is a competitor to Photoshop software. Is their any ?
https://www.gimp.org/ (https://www.gimp.org/)
-
Giving photos away for free is not going to attract new customers, it's just going to attract people who don't want to pay for anything.
If Adobe really wants to help and support contributors they should raise the royalty rate. It's as simple as that.
-
The News app on my iPhone gives me free access to tons of great stories from many sources. Some are only available on News+ and they are always trying to get me to upgrade. While some of those stories look interesting, the same content often becomes available for free in a few days from the same or a different source, so I can get access to 97-plus percent of what I want for free, and I have gotten very good at just skipping over any that are listed in News+. The probability that I am ever going to sign up for the paid news is basically zero. I suspect the same is going to happen here. Once we get it in our minds that the price for something is free, getting people to pay for it later is unlikely. After the word gets out that you can download over 36,000 high-quality images for free every year there will be no need for anyone to pay for them ever again - I certainly wouldn't. Commercial clients might occasionally if they can't get exactly the image they want but within a few months I expect those will be very few and far between. I hope I'm wrong but I won't be holding my breath on this one.
-
I'm guessing a lot less than the paying users who will now turn into free users.
That seems like the only reasonable thing to assume.
After all, if just by signing up at Adobe one can get 100 x 30 = 3,000 free photos per month x 12 = 36,000 free photos per year…
Why on earth would one even bother looking at the other images that are not free???
Geez.
Why would anyone buy images on Shutterstock, Istock or any of the other sites when they can get over 30,000 free images a year on Adobe. This will hurt/damage image makers. It will grow the Adobe business. ....
-
I'm guessing a lot less than the paying users who will now turn into free users.
That seems like the only reasonable thing to assume.
After all, if just by signing up at Adobe one can get 100 x 30 = 3,000 free photos per month x 12 = 36,000 free photos per year…
Why on earth would one even bother looking at the other images that are not free???
Geez.
Why would anyone buy images on Shutterstock, Istock or any of the other sites when they can get over 30,000 free images a year on Adobe. This will hurt/damage image makers. It will grow the Adobe business. ....
A loss leader where the contributors make the loss.
-
So there you have it folks... Adobe Stock seemed to be the sweetheart of the stock business, the one who played fair and square above everyone else and "respects the artist" (how many times have I heard this...), right?...Not.
You just hit Download on ANY free items and get the media straightaway. 'Clients' can simply sign up with their Google or FB account if they don't have an AS account. No fuss, no questions asked. If you happen to have multiple Google accounts, voilŕ, that's 100 times those accounts on a daily basis, if those 100 items per day are not enough (which I suspect won't).
I rarely show up in this forum, and much less often to rant, but I'm still shell-shocked by this piece of news. This move will likely undermine our sales not only in AS but throughout other marketplaces and seriously jeopardize our already ailing bottom line in the long run, if not earlier.
Other agencies give away free items, but in very limited numbers and somehow (in)directly tied to paid content. The fact AS left out any references to paid content as an 'afterthought' that will/might be implemented 'in the due course' (like the infamous Editorial images/videos and the possibility of choosing video thumbnails, features that have been requested time and time again for over 5 years, right Matt?), means that AS has something else in the cards, something that could prove to be entirely disruptive to our industry as a whole and to those who struggle to make a living out of this.
Already salivating for the next piece of exciting news...
-
Please, all stock agencies, stop doing stupid experiments.
With 70,000 free premium photos, any topic is covered.
The thief is not educated by giving him what he does not pay
-
Mat has apparently sweet-talked the powers that be into including a row of paid results into free searches!
And this is hot off the presses - I was doing some test searches this morning and the feature wasn't there, but just in the last 10 minutes or so it is. It doesn't make this new Free section good, but it is an important step that paid content is now on any page for a free search.
One request for multi-word searches with no free results (like the example I posted yesterday): I still get two rows of alternate two word searches in the free section before I get the paid row of images, a paid row of videos, etc.
It'd be fine to see some alternate searches suggested (with just words) for the free section, but as it is, it looks as if a wrong search in the free section is preferable to paying for anything :)
-
Early on Mat mentioned another piece of 'news' coming our way soon...
Anybody seen it yet? While we are on a roll....
-
Sorry, but this is like someone punching you in the face ten times, and then after you ask them to stop because they’re hurting you, they punch you in the face nine times.
-
I am not making light of this at all, this is how I felt after reading first post announcing the free program:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK9odsWwfIo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK9odsWwfIo)
-
Mat has apparently sweet-talked the powers that be into including a row of paid results into free searches!
And this is hot off the presses - I was doing some test searches this morning and the feature wasn't there, but just in the last 10 minutes or so it is. It doesn't make this new Free section good, but it is an important step that paid content is now on any page for a free search.
One request for multi-word searches with no free results (like the example I posted yesterday): I still get two rows of alternate two word searches in the free section before I get the paid row of images, a paid row of videos, etc.
It'd be fine to see some alternate searches suggested (with just words) for the free section, but as it is, it looks as if a wrong search in the free section is preferable to paying for anything :)
Thanks for this post Jo Ann. I don't know about how much "sweet talking" I did, but I was pleased to see such a quick response and fix. I was told yesterday this was happening but did not want to give any promises until I saw the update live. Content from the paid collection is now showing up in the free collection search results in an effort to convert free users to paying customers.
Thanks for all the feedback everyone. I appreciate the passion.
-Mat
-
Is there anywhere where we can read about the Licensing terms for the free images, I couldn't find it.
Is there uses they cannot be used for such as Print on demand etc?
It’s the regular standard license. Which is crazy. Even Getty made their “free” editorial images come in a labeled box with rules.
Even worse, videos come with an extended license. For free.
Thanks Sean. To clarify, videos come with an enhanced license, not an extended license. This is the case with all video downloads at Adobe Stock.
The difference can be found here: https://stock.adobe.com/license-terms#enhancedLicenses
-Mat
-
I just went on the Adobe Free section. I went through about 1000 images... 99% of these images are model/people images. Very good model/people images. If you shot models I would guess your sales will go to zero in the future. It will be interesting to see if Adobe adds more diversity to this collection with different types of images. One of the big contributors was Rawpixel.com. I do not know this photo house but very heavy on the typical stock model picture. Typical but very good images.
-
My bad. I thought "enhanced" was Adobe's term for "extended".
-
To all on this forum. Who is a competitor to Photoshop software. Is their any ?
In some countries the abuse of a dominant position is an offence punishable by law.
And yes, there is software as Gimp (free) or Afinity Photo (no subscription - Available on iPad)
-
Gimp user here.
https://www.darktable.org/ (https://www.darktable.org/)
-
Is anyone else seeing an effect so far from this?
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I had great sales on Tues and Wed, and today -- apparently the first full day of this being in effect -- my sales are in the toilet. I'll probably end up 70% down from the last few days. Possibly lower than a Saturday.
Anyone else seeing this effect already?
-
I usually never come on the forums, but this announcement, this was just too much. Bad news for all contributors who spend their time uploading good work.
In this difficult time, when we're already making such a small cut from our own content
- instead of help, you Adobe decided to hammer a nail into the coffin.
-
I usually never come on the forums, but this announcement, this was just too much. Bad news for all contributors who spend their time uploading good work.
In this difficult time, when we're already making such a small cut from our own content
- instead of help, you Adobe decided to hammer a nail into the coffin.
Same old, same old for me....... Bit better than recent days which have, though, been utterly feeble.
-
The News app on my iPhone gives me free access to tons of great stories from many sources. Some are only available on News+ and they are always trying to get me to upgrade. While some of those stories look interesting, the same content often becomes available for free in a few days from the same or a different source, so I can get access to 97-plus percent of what I want for free, and I have gotten very good at just skipping over any that are listed in News+. The probability that I am ever going to sign up for the paid news is basically zero. I suspect the same is going to happen here. Once we get it in our minds that the price for something is free, getting people to pay for it later is unlikely. After the word gets out that you can download over 36,000 high-quality images for free every year there will be no need for anyone to pay for them ever again - I certainly wouldn't. Commercial clients might occasionally if they can't get exactly the image they want but within a few months I expect those will be very few and far between. I hope I'm wrong but I won't be holding my breath on this one.
I think your news app analogy is very appropriate for this conversation. My question for you is this...did you ever pay for a News app before you started getting the articles for free? If not, then they have lost nothing from you. Do you however, believe that other people are willing to pay for the news app that were drawn in through an article they found for free? My gut says the answer is yes. How many people were subscribing to have the paper delivered to their door until the digital era kicked in and completely disrupted the industry? How many papers went out of business because they didn't adapt to the changes fast enough?
The people that only visit stock sites that offer content for free had no chance of ever buying a license from you. As was illustrated earlier in this thread, those sites have picked up a lot of momentum and that hasn't seemed to be slowing down. Now, there is at least a chance to convert the people visiting for the free collection into paying customers. This has already proven to be true in just the first day of the program as I've learned multiple visitors through free converted and made purchases yesterday which is very good news. The collection size, content, the download use, everything about this is being closely monitored by people much smarter than I am whom I trust. They will be reacting appropriately.
I've heard your concerns loud and clear and I promise that I understand them. I'm in constant communication with the team and I will continue to keep you updated as I learn anything that you may find important.
Thanks,
Mat
-
I just went on the Adobe Free section. I went through about 1000 images... 99% of these images are model/people images. Very good model/people images. If you shot models I would guess your sales will go to zero in the future. It will be interesting to see if Adobe adds more diversity to this collection with different types of images. One of the big contributors was Rawpixel.com. I do not know this photo house but very heavy on the typical stock model picture. Typical but very good images.
If you want to take a look at the major contributors to the free section - and I agree that for the most part the content is excellent - I made a list of links yesterday.
There are some really odd (ironic) elements to the deal these contributors & Adobe made with each other:
Jeremy Bishop (~4,000 assets free) also has a portfolio on Unsplash. One of his free photos on Unsplash (https://unsplash.com/photos/EwKXn5CapA4) is a paid (https://stock.adobe.com/images/tree-of-life/338151924?prev_url=detail) download at Adobe Stock. Not only is he undermining the rest of contributors with his decision to do the free section, he's undermining Adobe with his Unsplash portfolio (https://unsplash.com/@jeremybishop)
This guy's photos are gorgeous. I can't square his Unsplash bio "I love supporting and inspiring creatives around the world...." with all of the above.
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=207154988 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=207154988)
Another of the free collection contributors, Artinspiring, is also at Freepik (https://www.freepik.com/inspiring) (premium section). I'd give him/her an award for keyword spamming (this Santa showed up in a beach search I did). These aren't a few accidental, slightly relevant terms...
https://stock.adobe.com/images/isolated-santa-claus-standing-on-white-background/127807443 (https://stock.adobe.com/images/isolated-santa-claus-standing-on-white-background/127807443)
vector woman swimming suit standing little dog flat girl beach beautiful bikini body cartoon cute female power happiness holiday illustration lady person young attractive background positive carefree caucasian character cheerful chubby dance enjoyment fashion fat fun happy isolated joy jump long hair overweight party plus size pretty puppy self acceptance
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=206203859 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=206203859)
Here's the rest of the list. It was very dispiriting to see Jacob Lund's great work in this collection - remember he was setting up software for direct sales (https://www.microstockgroup.com/selling-direct/a-new-way-of-self-hosted-sites-demo-launching-today!/) and came here to gauge interest?
The only weak link/good news for paid contributors here is Wirestock. For all the other contributors of illustrations or images (I didn't look at video as I don't really have a clue how to evaluate it), these portfolios show you what not to bother shooting during the coming year.
No one can compete with free.
Which also makes me wonder how the agencies that are selling the now-free images will feel about what Adobe has done. This free image (https://stock.adobe.com/images/happy-senior-woman-standing-in-backyard/141642804) is $25 at Pond5, (https://www.pond5.com/stock-images/photos/item/72364229-happy-senior-woman-standing-backyard) $19.99 to $199 at Alamy (https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-portrait-of-happy-senior-woman-standing-in-backyard-133505024.html) (at least in theory) and also at Shutterstock (https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portrait-happy-senior-woman-standing-backyard-1219239355), Dreamstime (https://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photo-happy-senior-woman-standing-backyard-portrait-image95508136) and Deposit Photos (https://depositphotos.com/141547706/stock-photo-happy-senior-woman-standing-in.html). There are lots of other examples like this as the factories spread themselves around
Oct 20,2020: Edited to add that I noticed today that at Dreamstime, the above image is still there but has a banner I've not seen before: "This image is no longer available to download". Pond5 no longer shows it "Oh no! It appears this item is no longer available on Pond5. Try searching again to find something else you might like." Shutterstock, Deposit Photos and Alamy are still showing the image. No idea if this is something the agencies initiated or WavebreakMedia did
WavebreakMediaMicro (over 10,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=200849471 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=200849471)
wavebreak3(~4,200)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=206922540 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=206922540)
Rawpixel.com (over 10,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=204567087 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=204567087)
Wirestock (~5,300)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=208428317 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=208428317)
Caia Image (~4,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=209253708 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=209253708)
Jacob Lund (~7,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=224608 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=224608)
Hero Images (~7,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=209254274 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=209254274)
Morgan (111)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=39318 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=39318)
Good Studio (~3,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=206710010 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=206710010)
Gstudio (~4,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=201303411 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=201303411)
Visual Generation (~4,000)
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=201052191 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=201052191)
-
Is anyone else seeing an effect so far from this?
I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I had great sales on Tues and Wed, and today -- apparently the first full day of this being in effect -- my sales are in the toilet. I'll probably end up 70% down from the last few days. Possibly lower than a Saturday.
Anyone else seeing this effect already?
The effect won't be immediate. It will take some time until it is posted on all the forums, groups etc. We will now start seeing happy people sharing the great news.
-
Now, there is at least a chance to convert the people visiting for the free collection into paying customers.
Maybe, but there's a better chance of converting paying customers to the free content. I mean someone who isn't likely to pay, who is drawn in by high quality free content might buy one or two of something they find missing in that tier. But the paying customer, I would imagine, is more likely to not buy as many as possible and choose from the free section instead.
JoAnne, none of those links are working for me.
-
JoAnne, none of those links are working for me.
I just tried a couple and they worked. Chrome, MacOS, I am logged in to Adobe Stock (although that shouldn't matter)...
Tried on my phone too (Android, Chrome) and that worked as well
-
I buy a lot of stock as well as contribute. Some of my clients are very budget-conscious (a nice way of saying cheap) and once they get word that Adobe offers free stock images they will never want to pay for stock again.
Microstock killed traditional stock. Giving away images for free will kill microstock.
-
They work ok for me. safari ipad also logged into AS
-
JoAnne, none of those links are working for me.
I just tried a couple and they worked. Chrome, MacOS, I am logged in to Adobe Stock (although that shouldn't matter)...
Weird. I'm in FF, and I'm signed in in another tab, but searching AS thinks I'm not signed in and won't show me anything. I keep getting page not found. Guess it's me somehow.
-
JoAnne, none of those links are working for me.
I just tried a couple and they worked. Chrome, MacOS, I am logged in to Adobe Stock (although that shouldn't matter)...
Just tried a couple which worked: FF, Win, not logged in
-
JoAnne, none of those links are working for me.
I just tried a couple and they worked. Chrome, MacOS, I am logged in to Adobe Stock (although that shouldn't matter)...
Just tried a couple which worked: FF, Win, not logged in
I must have some bad cookies. I opened a private window and I could see them.
-
Mat, One more suggestion for results when there's nothing found in the free section
A one word search where video was the media selected and there were no free results showed one row of images, and then one of videos, one in 3D and the last "All Free" where it's just images from the free collection.
If a buyer has specifically selected videos, showing images first isn't helpful. Show videos from the paid section. If you must add something from the free section, show videos, not images.
-
Mat, One more suggestion for results when there's nothing found in the free section
A one word search where video was the media selected and there were no free results showed one row of images, and then one of videos, one in 3D and the last "All Free" where it's just images from the free collection.
If a buyer has specifically selected videos, showing images first isn't helpful. Show videos from the paid section. If you must add something from the free section, show videos, not images.
That's a great suggestion, thanks Jo Ann.
-
100 donwloads/day is way too much.
My personal opinion is that also 1 download/day for free is too much, but you are the experts. So i'll wait for a grow on my earnings,
thanks to your strategy.
-
Now, there is at least a chance to convert the people visiting for the free collection into paying customers.
Maybe, but there's a better chance of converting paying customers to the free content. I mean someone who isn't likely to pay, who is drawn in by high quality free content might buy one or two of something they find missing in that tier. But the paying customer, I would imagine, is more likely to not buy as many as possible and choose from the free section instead.
I agree. If I was a small or medium sized business with a subscription, I'd switch to the $29.99 smallest subscription plan today, and supplement the rest with free images. The quality is very good right now. I do think they'll gain some customers through this though, and probably sell more creative cloud subscriptions through it by bringing people in.
-
My experience in life has taught me that there is NOTHING FREE.
Except Copyright.
-
The stock of AS is not a business, for the company, it is a satellite company, a complement to the Cloud.
It is a benefit to contribute to your star software. Although it is not beneficial, it serves Adobe as a tool complement to its software.
It's like the old Corel clipart. A tool to your software. One more service to your customers.
Maybe they will stick with Freepik clients.
What a crazy business.
We will celebrate, get to Christmas healthy. Covid crap.
-
Now, there is at least a chance to convert the people visiting for the free collection into paying customers.
Maybe, but there's a better chance of converting paying customers to the free content. I mean someone who isn't likely to pay, who is drawn in by high quality free content might buy one or two of something they find missing in that tier. But the paying customer, I would imagine, is more likely to not buy as many as possible and choose from the free section instead.
yep - i've heard the same argument for over 40 years - we'll publish your photo/recipe/game/article/software and won't pay you, but the exposure will bring you paying customers. it just doesnt work - it's easy for AS to think/hope it works - what have they got to lose? quite a different story for those who only gain from sales, not promises
perhaps there will a few who pay after getting free pix - but where's the analysis(evidence/case history) showing it will more than the direct losses from free competition?
-
Wow. The free section is extensive. No point making any further investments in this business. I am disgusted with you (Adobe that is). Good bye from me.
-
Is there any way to opt out of this travesty? I don't mind if Adobe gives my images away for "free" but I think Adobe should pay me my/our royalty and put it down as an advertising expense.
This move by Adobe makes the offering of being screwed by Shutterstock look very appealing, at least they have enough respect for contributors to pay them 0.10c
-
Is there any way to opt out of this travesty? I don't mind if Adobe gives my images away for "free" but I think Adobe should pay me my/our royalty and put it down as an advertising expense.
This move by Adobe makes the offering of being screwed by Shutterstock look very appealing, at least they have enough respect for contributors to pay them 0.10c
You are not opted in to the program so there is nothing to opt out of. Only the pre-selected contributors have content in the free collection. FYI, Adobe Stock does pay contributors the full royalty on the introductory free subscription downloads for new customers.
To clarify, the free collection is not available for contribution outside the initial selected contributors at this time. Your content is not in the free collection. Please review the FAQ from my initial post for additional information and clarification.
Thanks,
Mat
-
Is there any way to opt out of this travesty? I don't mind if Adobe gives my images away for "free" but I think Adobe should pay me my/our royalty and put it down as an advertising expense.
This move by Adobe makes the offering of being screwed by Shutterstock look very appealing, at least they have enough respect for contributors to pay them 0.10c
You are not opted in to the program so there is nothing to opt out of. Only the pre-selected contributors have content in the free collection. FYI, Adobe Stock does pay contributors the full royalty on the introductory free subscription downloads for new customers.
To clarify, the free collection is not available for contribution outside the initial selected contributors at this time. Your content is not in the free collection. Please review the FAQ from my initial post for additional information and clarification.
Thanks,
Mat
Thanks for your kind reply Mat, appreciated.
BTW I don't think giving away images for free does any good for contributors.
Cheers!
-
@ Mat ....
Mat, I don't want you to misinterpret my words.
I'm really happy for Adobe, really.
Congratulations, you have no rivals. For real. Congratulations.
Also, it suits me very well that you keep the whole market.
Agencies cannot compete against free.
It is not an amateur free. It is a free from paid professionals.
Well.
It can be said that we are Premium.
There are files of extraordinary quality for your clients, renewed and updated by professionals.
And if the client does not find what he wants or needs, there is the payment section, Premium.
Well.
Congratulations, no kidding, AS is going to do very well.
It's a very good maneuver for AS.
-
Free has never worked to help contributors-- never. It might help sell software.
Paying customers will now want free.
It will destroy market in the end perhaps. I
wish I had not pumped AS after SS fiasco. Won't again.
Another thing I do not like. AS never emailed contributors. While I am glad Matt came on here to tell us, the very fact that all AS contributors were not told of this free plan or the fact that we will now have to compete against free images-- tells you contributors truly are NOT a concern for Adobe or respected.
-
OH yeah, for contributors it's not a good thing. But nothing, nothing, nothing.
It's news, disastrous x 3
-
It will no longer be known how much a photograph has been generated. We don't know what will be downloaded.
Those statistics for 2021 will no longer be possible.
If you can get images to be sold in AS, you will go to the a la carte section. You will receive an invitation to charge for the batch of images.
It's a great plan, very well. Great. For AS.
Nevertheless, it is an exquisite maneuver.
Of an extraordinary talent. Sublime. This should be studied in every university on the planet. It's extraordinary. For Adobe.
SS is white right now, sweating, and crying.
-
Please, all stock agencies, stop doing stupid experiments.
With 70,000 free premium photos, any topic is covered.
Actually this isn't true, I've had a look and a few of my niche areas aren't covered so that's a relief.
-
Hello super niche.
If they need your niche, and you don't accept their conditions, they have an army to fight for that niche. Unless, no one but you can access that niche.
-
Adobe is marginalized towards software users and SS is left with those who need raw images.
Maybe not so bright for AS.
He had the advantage of the anger and support of the collaborators. Maybe investing in attracting clients who don't need the software was the way to go.
As @ Mat says, in time it will be seen.
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
-
Hi everyone,
I truly appreciate the feedback you've given so far. As many of you know, I've been an active member in this forum since long before I worked at Fotolia and eventually Adobe Stock. You've always held me accountable and have never been an "easy" group. While you've proven challenging at times, you have consistently earned my respect and you continue to do so. It's why I'm here as much as I am. It's not just me that values your opinions at Adobe Stock. The entire team is grateful for who you are, and what you do. I know I say this a lot, but it's important to me to emphasize it again. Without content creators, Adobe Stock does not exist. We have a great responsibility to you and we take that very seriously.
There are no perfect answers or solutions. Once it seems you've got things figured out, the industry changes. That's the only thing I've found that stays the same in stock as the years go by...change. We cannot realistically expect to continue to do the same things, the same way and find the same results as we have had in the past. If it worked that way, I'd still be submitting everything with massive amounts of Gaussian blur and spot color. We have to adapt and evolve.
It is my mission to provide you all with communication as to how best to navigate and adapt through the changes in a manner that is as timely and as transparent as possible.
I will be out of the (home) office tomorrow (Friday 10/16) as I am traveling with my family to visit my Daughter in Eastern Washington. I won't be able to respond as much the next few days as I have the last two, but I will be checking in as often as I can and I will get back to you with any updates or answers that are needed as soon as possible. Your patience is appreciated in advance.
Sincerely,
Mat Hayward
-
I just went on the Adobe Free section. I went through about 1000 images... 99% of these images are model/people images. Very good model/people images. If you shot models I would guess your sales will go to zero in the future. It will be interesting to see if Adobe adds more diversity to this collection with different types of images. One of the big contributors was Rawpixel.com. I do not know this photo house but very heavy on the typical stock model picture. Typical but very good images.
If you want to take a look at the major contributors to the free section - and I agree that for the most part the content is excellent - I made a list of links yesterday.
thanks for this Jo! yes, very interesting to see some really great work, and some of it is average, but imho clients don't have quite the same standards as photographers. average photos that are free will still "outsell" (eek) a superior image that costs $$.
-
Hi everyone,
I truly appreciate the feedback you've given so far. As many of you know, I've been an active member in this forum since long before I worked at Fotolia and eventually Adobe Stock. You've always held me accountable and have never been an "easy" group. While you've proven challenging at times, you have consistently earned my respect and you continue to do so. It's why I'm here as much as I am. It's not just me that values your opinions at Adobe Stock. The entire team is grateful for who you are, and what you do. I know I say this a lot, but it's important to me to emphasize it again. Without content creators, Adobe Stock does not exist. We have a great responsibility to you and we take that very seriously.
There are no perfect answers or solutions. Once it seems you've got things figured out, the industry changes. That's the only thing I've found that stays the same in stock as the years go by...change. We cannot realistically expect to continue to do the same things, the same way and find the same results as we have had in the past. If it worked that way, I'd still be submitting everything with massive amounts of Gaussian blur and spot color. We have to adapt and evolve.
It is my mission to provide you all with communication as to how best to navigate and adapt through the changes in a manner that is as timely and as transparent as possible.
I will be out of the (home) office tomorrow (Friday 10/16) as I am traveling with my family to visit my Daughter in Eastern Washington. I won't be able to respond as much the next few days as I have the last two, but I will be checking in as often as I can and I will get back to you with any updates or answers that are needed as soon as possible. Your patience is appreciated in advance.
Sincerely,
Mat Hayward
Enjoy the weekend. Thank you.
-
Hi everyone,
I truly appreciate the feedback you've given so far. As many of you know, I've been an active member in this forum since long before I worked at Fotolia and eventually Adobe Stock. You've always held me accountable and have never been an "easy" group. While you've proven challenging at times, you have consistently earned my respect and you continue to do so. It's why I'm here as much as I am. It's not just me that values your opinions at Adobe Stock. The entire team is grateful for who you are, and what you do. I know I say this a lot, but it's important to me to emphasize it again. Without content creators, Adobe Stock does not exist. We have a great responsibility to you and we take that very seriously.
There are no perfect answers or solutions. Once it seems you've got things figured out, the industry changes. That's the only thing I've found that stays the same in stock as the years go by...change. We cannot realistically expect to continue to do the same things, the same way and find the same results as we have had in the past. If it worked that way, I'd still be submitting everything with massive amounts of Gaussian blur and spot color. We have to adapt and evolve.
It is my mission to provide you all with communication as to how best to navigate and adapt through the changes in a manner that is as timely and as transparent as possible.
I will be out of the (home) office tomorrow (Friday 10/16) as I am traveling with my family to visit my Daughter in Eastern Washington. I won't be able to respond as much the next few days as I have the last two, but I will be checking in as often as I can and I will get back to you with any updates or answers that are needed as soon as possible. Your patience is appreciated in advance.
Sincerely,
Mat Hayward
thanks Mat. You've been put into a terrible position here, having to defend something that we all know is a bad idea, at least from a contributor's perspective. It's great that you've been brave enough to spend so much time here today. :)
-
So offering free content to compete against free content? Who will win the race to have the most and best free content? And what's the prize for the winner?
Unfortunately Adobe and other businesses are being put in this position by people like us. Creatives who think it's brave, honorable, charitable or some other noble cause to provide free content to free sites. No wonder why we're called starving artists. Hard to pay for food when you think it's a good idea to work for free.
-
Actually, the photos are paid, with an agreement between the artist and AS. Free is for the customer. AS pays for images, whether they are downloaded or not. Logically, you will have the best of the best, they will not give away anything that is not extraordinary. At an agreed price, whether the image is downloaded or not.
It's not good for us.
AS offers quality to its customers. You should not pay part of the commission for sales to the collaborator.
The collaborator receives money for his work. Whether it is downloaded 20k times or not is no longer the contributor's business.
Our portfolio has competition. The quality of companions in the FREE section.
We will have to do quality and volume to offer alternatives to free files.
Bad day.
-
The News app on my iPhone gives me free access to tons of great stories from many sources. Some are only available on News+ and they are always trying to get me to upgrade. While some of those stories look interesting, the same content often becomes available for free in a few days from the same or a different source, so I can get access to 97-plus percent of what I want for free, and I have gotten very good at just skipping over any that are listed in News+. The probability that I am ever going to sign up for the paid news is basically zero. I suspect the same is going to happen here. Once we get it in our minds that the price for something is free, getting people to pay for it later is unlikely. After the word gets out that you can download over 36,000 high-quality images for free every year there will be no need for anyone to pay for them ever again - I certainly wouldn't. Commercial clients might occasionally if they can't get exactly the image they want but within a few months I expect those will be very few and far between. I hope I'm wrong but I won't be holding my breath on this one.
I think your news app analogy is very appropriate for this conversation. My question for you is this...did you ever pay for a News app before you started getting the articles for free? If not, then they have lost nothing from you. Do you however, believe that other people are willing to pay for the news app that were drawn in through an article they found for free? My gut says the answer is yes. How many people were subscribing to have the paper delivered to their door until the digital era kicked in and completely disrupted the industry? How many papers went out of business because they didn't adapt to the changes fast enough?
The people that only visit stock sites that offer content for free had no chance of ever buying a license from you. As was illustrated earlier in this thread, those sites have picked up a lot of momentum and that hasn't seemed to be slowing down. Now, there is at least a chance to convert the people visiting for the free collection into paying customers. This has already proven to be true in just the first day of the program as I've learned multiple visitors through free converted and made purchases yesterday which is very good news. The collection size, content, the download use, everything about this is being closely monitored by people much smarter than I am whom I trust. They will be reacting appropriately.
I've heard your concerns loud and clear and I promise that I understand them. I'm in constant communication with the team and I will continue to keep you updated as I learn anything that you may find important.
Thanks,
Mat
Which news apps allow people to copy whole articles to incorporate in their products and sell?
-
So offering free content to compete against free content? Who will win the race to have the most and best free content? And what's the prize for the winner?
Unfortunately Adobe and other businesses are being put in this position by people like us. Creatives who think it's brave, honorable, charitable or some other noble cause to provide free content to free sites. No wonder why we're called starving artists. Hard to pay for food when you think it's a good idea to work for free.
The winner gets on month of free downloads on Shutterstock!
-
This free collection stuff doesn't sound ok to me but I must agree that at the moment Adobe Stock is my new "iStock-before-the-getty-nightmare" agency
Very good prices and rpi with regularity
-
...Microstock killed traditional stock. Giving away images for free will kill microstock.
"Microstock is reaping what it sowed". That idea gets raised as discussions about changes - usually damaging ones - come up. I think it's way off the mark because it misses some really key details of how things operated with "traditional stock" and what microstock did when it started in the early 2000s.
Prices in traditional stock were kept high in part because only a few people could participate - limited supply. Costs were different then - film & slides versus digital, and many more people were involved to help a customer locate a needed image - but isolated apples or citrus slices got those high prices as well, not just elaborate shoots. The business operated more like those from earlier ages with a guild controlling who gets to ply the trade - which is how you maintain high prices.
Also, traditional stock was often licensed as rights managed (you pay a different price depending on your use, which countries and how big a business you are). That's a complicated transaction, not something easily and quickly handled.
When royalty free licensing came along - pre microstock - there was lots of complaining from those who could see what that would do to their income, but it allowed a simple transaction to occur where the price is the price. It freed the agency from tracking usage (for the most part) because there were no time or geography or page-placement issues to check up on. It may have increased the buyer pool slightly, but not much
When microstock started, its big change was not just that transactions were immediate and simple, but reducing prices drew in millions of small business buyers who would not (and did not) license stock images before. It wasn't just opening up the supply to anyone who could pass the agency's acceptance test, but massively increasing the buyer pool as a way of increasing demand as well.
Most of the changes since have been either agencies trying to poach business from one another, not increasing the pool of buyers, or dropping any idea of acceptance standards to increase the supply of images - more of the same, not so much expanding the type of imagery available to buyers.
I've heard many complaints about subscriptions being the source of, or start of, the race to the bottom in microstock. At the beginning, there were sane guardrails that made subscriptions work for all three groups in this market - buyers, contributors and agencies. (1) the number of downloads per day was capped, (2) subscription prices increased as the size of the collection increased, (3) only high volume (750 a month) subscriptions were available, and (4) no rollovers
Once Shutterstock was successful, every agency wanted to get their piece of that action, but in spite of their claims that subscriptions would bring in new buyers, it always canibalized credit sales. Agencies experimented with lower priced subscriptions, lower volume subscriptions, no restrictions (daily limits went and only the monthly remained).
The worst of these schemes had to have been the Dollar Photo Club, with a 10 image a month subscription for $10, with rollovers. Until Getty came up with Premium Access that netted contributors fractions of a cent per download that is :)
There is nothing inherently unsustainable about the original microstock model. The good news was how successful it was; the bad news is that success (i.e. lots of profits) brings in predators who are only looking at the money they can wring out. Each erosion of contributor earnings - whether it be a royalty cut, increased rights for the same license price, or trying to compete with free - encourages a similar move from the other agencies.
In Adobe's case, their primary business is something other than licensing stock. We're barely a blip on their radar screen and how they perform - or don't - as a stock agency doesn't impact what they care about - see this article (https://www.investors.com/research/stocks-to-watch-adobe-tops-microsoft-near-new-buy-point/)and this one (https://finance.yahoo.com/news/adobe-adbe-6-4-since-153003677.html)on recent stock performance.
I used to work for a computer company that started as a hardware company, but evolved to both hardware & software. In selling hardware and trying to make their quotas, sales reps would frequently sweeten the deal by including free software. As part of a software group whose budget was set on the basis of paid sales, we were scr3wed as we received no credit for those freebies. The company cared about hardware sales, their primary business.
Adobe has done a deal with factory contributors so they get paid for these freebies, but other contributors with similars can't compete with free and it beggars belief to suggest that their sales won't be affected. Adobe may view this arrangement as fair, but I don't. However, Adobe will prioritize their primary business and we - stock contributors - are in their thoughts, if at all, as a deal sweetener.
I don't think freebies will kill microstock, although it may well put many of us small-business contributors out of business. If you look at Shutterstock's latest uploads (screenshot from a few minutes ago), this is likely what microstock will mean a year or two from now :(
(https://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/Uploads%2010-16-2020-TN.jpg) (https://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/Uploads%2010-16-2020.jpg)
-
...Microstock killed traditional stock. Giving away images for free will kill microstock.
Most of the changes since have been either agencies trying to poach business from one another, not increasing the pool of buyers, or dropping any idea of acceptance standards to increase the supply of images - more of the same, not so much expanding the type of imagery available to buyers.
excellent observation, and I had wondered if Adobe is doing this to knock out their competitors, instead of trying to get new customers. I suppose they've tried to suggest they are trying to bring in new customers, but we all suspect they are not the right kind of customer, ie, a paying customer.
-
Interesting move. I'm wondering why Adobe didn't do this some 15-20 years ago. Then none of the other micro companies like iS and SS would have even existed.
-
Interesting move. I'm wondering why Adobe didn't do this some 15-20 years ago. Then none of the other micro companies like iS and SS would have even existed.
Adobe as a company has other products and always was in more secure situation. They just decided that this is the moment.
Other thing - amount of people which think that creatives by their nature are happy to work for "references and recognition" instead of money will continue to grow. Reflecting this currently paying clients will follow the motto "nothing personal, only business"
-
Actually, the photos are paid, with an agreement between the artist and AS. Free is for the customer. AS pays for images, whether they are downloaded or not. Logically, you will have the best of the best, they will not give away anything that is not extraordinary. At an agreed price, whether the image is downloaded or not.
If that was directed at me, that's not the point. Regardless if the people who own the free photos are paid, more free photos hurts the people like us who aren't being directly paid.
Who remembers free ad-based internet from the late 1990s? You open the app to connect and while the 56K modem takes a minute to brrrr-weeee-bing-bong you get to stare at an advertisement. For a while a I didn't pay for internet. Why would I if free internet was available? Over time the free services would go out of business. So I kept finding new ones until there were no more free internet providers and I had no option but to pay. And that's what needs to happen with free photos. They need to go away because the more free options that are available the fewer people will buy photos. One of these filthy rich stock companies needs to buy out these free sites and shut them down. Or creatives need to come to their senses and realize they're hurting themselves and the entire industry by submitting content to free sites.
-
So offering free content to compete against free content? Who will win the race to have the most and best free content? And what's the prize for the winner?
Unfortunately Adobe and other businesses are being put in this position by people like us. Creatives who think it's brave, honorable, charitable or some other noble cause to provide free content to free sites. No wonder why we're called starving artists. Hard to pay for food when you think it's a good idea to work for free.
The winner gets on month of free downloads on Shutterstock!
The only winners will be the people who download the free photos and the free photo sites. The free photos sites will still figure out some way to stuff their pockets full of money for swank offices and mansions while not paying contributors. They'll write some deceptive chivalrous grass-roots mission statement manipulating appealing to the naive charitable nature of creatives.
-
May be somebody can identify the source, i don't remember the exact wording too. The statement which i find very correct, was the following: a manager which proposes to give away own product to increase sales, will never solve the compnay's problems. He will just move to next after this company death.
-
Actually, the photos are paid, with an agreement between the artist and AS. Free is for the customer. AS pays for images, whether they are downloaded or not. Logically, you will have the best of the best, they will not give away anything that is not extraordinary. At an agreed price, whether the image is downloaded or not.
If that was directed at me, that's not the point. Regardless if the people who own the free photos are paid, more free photos hurts the people like us who aren't being directly paid.
Who remembers free ad-based internet from the late 1990s? You open the app to connect and while the 56K modem takes a minute to brrrr-weeee-bing-bong you get to stare at an advertisement. For a while a I didn't pay for internet. Why would I if free internet was available? Over time the free services would go out of business. So I kept finding new ones until there were no more free internet providers and I had no option but to pay. And that's what needs to happen with free photos. They need to go away because the more free options that are available the fewer people will buy photos. One of these filthy rich stock companies needs to buy out these free sites and shut them down. Or creatives need to come to their senses and realize they're hurting themselves and the entire industry by submitting content to free sites.
The problem is that they're not hurting themselves. Look at Freepik. They made their money by stealing work and offering it for free, and Shutterstock allowed them to earn affiliate money. Then when they had enough money to make people pay they suddenly got selective and invited a chosen few to upload high quality work, which they make good earnings from, if you believe what people are saying. So someone like me loses tons of money while they give away my stolen work, but Freepik makes money, and Shutterstock gets referral business, and a select number of contributors get chosen to get a windfall while the getting's good.
Freepik then went on to become an Adobe affiliate, and now Adobe has made a deal with some of those contributors to pay them in advance and give their work away "free" in order to attract more creatives to Adobe software. So you have a small group of contributors quietly cutting deals with Shutterstock, Freepik, Adobe, etc. while the rest of us get shut out, have our royalties slashed and eventually give up.
-
I totally agree with the comments you are making, I just keep studying DUO. I have a hard time expressing myself.
It's not really the end of microstock, right. We are in a time of change and I am positive. We will find the way.
Actually, the only thing I want to convey, when I say that it is not free, is that they will pay more than 0.10. But in theory. 0.10 is per download. Zero if not downloaded. AS will now pay more than 0.10, but there will be many image sales that will exceed several digits in commission, but will be charged at a price previously set.
As for Freepik, this is his end. My thinking is, as has been said here, that as the number of artists increases, the margin becomes unsustainable, except for four collaborators. His clients are software, now, they pay little to Freepik or nothing to AS, they go to AS, who have the best photos selected for graphic designers. Free.
Before, we competed with each other. Now we compete between ourselves and free images. Material will be expanded, according to the needs of AS. Without us there is no Stock, the problem is oversupply. You kick a stone, and a microstocker comes out behind it.
Like when you bought a pot of coffee and they gave you a mobile.
The market will stabilize. But this AS maneuver hurts us and widens the competition between us further. Selling batch files of 1k images, 2k images, 67k images. Files by weight, like chickens in the butcher shop. By weight.
We are neither angry nor sad anymore. The market is simply adjusting. We will find the way.
-
(https://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/Uploads%2010-16-2020-TN.jpg) (https://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/Uploads%2010-16-2020.jpg)
This looks like a screenshot taken pre-2010. It seems that we have come full circle.
I agree with the people who think this is just a part of a bigger plan which main focus is Adobe CC. We're an afterthought at this point, a means to an end.
-
Even the people who are being paid to put their images in the free section may not be winners because they are hurting their own non-free content sales as well. The free stuff may be chosen more than anticipated vs. their non-free content.
-
Of course. AS knows what each customer is looking for. Know what each image sells. Know what each collaborator earns. The auction starts now.
They are not going to give away the bad, they are going to give their clients the best. And then there are the images that are downloaded from time to time, for those customers who do not find something they need. Service and quality for software customers.
In reality, the most affected are the general group of collaborators. Even if we can use upfront cash, in reality, only the best will be paid.
In my thinking, all collaborators lose. Who does it affect the most? Those who are growing, those in the middle, those with large but not huge portfolios. The small ones exactly the same, little income. The big ones exactly the same, income in one way or another, somewhat lower. For collaborators in the middle, income drops, once again.
They have done it with transparency and showing their face. They will take care of the collaborators, giving money without being abusive. The move is corporate and very successful for the company. They squeeze us a little more, so that we can improve.
-
Adobe is not just "educating" clients.
It will be a question of days to watch adobe free content being sold in other agencies.
Agencies do nothing about it and Adobe is now on this boat too
More and more i am convinced that copyright thieves is the new form of art.
-
(https://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/Uploads%2010-16-2020-TN.jpg) (https://www.digitalbristles.com/temp/Uploads%2010-16-2020.jpg)
This looks like a screenshot taken pre-2010. It seems that we have come full circle.
I agree with the people who think this is just a part of a bigger plan which main focus is Adobe CC. We're an afterthought at this point, a means to an end.
Exactly my thought, you beat me to it. Microstock started out as amateurs and semi-amateurs providing images to fill the gap, as has been mentioned. People and small companies who couldn’t afford hundreds of dollars for one image used them. The images were not big budgeted, but the royalties weren’t big either. And the images Jo Ann posts look very much like the images that most of us submitted back in 2004, when we were starting out. Yes, full circle.
-
They will offer three very good sunflowers for free and the millions of sunflowers are left for the most demanding, those who want something special or those who have time to search, in addition to money.
Company decision. At the moment, we have no alternatives.
If they start to pay less and less, the issue will get worse. It's like a paid temp job, if we work well. Like the delivery men who buy the van and pay for their health insurance. Self-employed, not self-employed.
It can get worse, if AS pays less and less for the batch of images, and if you lower the level, another will enter.
In any case, the ethics of AS, although it is a business, has always been honest with us. At the very least, they speak to us as a people.
-
The last and I leave you alone.
If CorelDRAW buys Alamy, we already know the way, it serves customers.
Google or PayPal, Hawaii or Tesla, maybe, if they enter this market, they will pay us well for each file. However, there is an exaggerated offer of the files.
Now, free, but by professionals. It is, a brutal change in the industry. A quality add-on for your software. It is very well thought out. Great move from AS. For AS.
:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X
-
Now, free, but by professionals. It is, a brutal change in the industry. A quality add-on for your software. It is very well thought out. Great move from AS. For AS.
I believe that sums it up in a nutshell.
This is definitely a great move for AS. And definitely not a great move for most of the rest of us.
I'm guessing that the reason Adobe didn't step up to the plate last spring when many contributors were crying out for them to fill the gap that SS was creating for us… was exactly this. We just didn't know it at the time.
-
Yep, they all had a plan in place. More $$ for them, less for us.
The only good news in the last couple of days is that us retirees are getting a 1.3% 😯 raise in December from SS. Not much, but at least they aren’t taking anything away (yet). Not enough to make up for the lost microstock revenue this year, though.
-
More and more i am convinced that copyright thieves is the new form of art.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I can't shut my mouth, sorry.
True, they could have invested millions in aggressive advertising to attract stock customers who are not using the software. Also, they could have asked for exclusivity, and we would have entered.
Now, we know that your decision is the right one, for your parent (Matrix) company.
-
SS will lose customers who have the software, I don't know where else they will continue to pull the string.
The other agencies will start paying pennies for bulk lots.
We entered a curvy road, downhill and without brakes.
Bad time to quit smoking.
It can always get worse.
-
If only I were Joe Biden's son Hunter. I would not need to work in photos. I would get millions from China and the Ukraine for doing nothing and having no knowledge/expertise of anything. Just my last name Biden.... But I am not a Biden and I need future image creation and fair pay.....
-
Please, all stock agencies, stop doing stupid experiments.
With 70,000 free premium photos, any topic is covered.
Actually this isn't true, I've had a look and a few of my niche areas aren't covered so that's a relief.
Come on. Use simple 80/20 thinking. Many sellable themes are covered in the free section. Great for you that your niche is not impacted, but for the lion's share of contributors their subject matter is covered for FREE.
-
ODDS AGAINST YOU? NEED HELP?
I'm going to call the Equalizer
-
For me I will use my personal "equalizer".
Both parts can play the game so why should i continue to use their software when they are giving our artist work for free to clients?
Don't get me wrong it's only business so Let's play the free game:
For Premiere i will use Da vinci resolve (free/better and with big community support)
For Photoshop i will use GIMP (free big comunnity support)
For lightroom i will use Darktable (Free, recent 1 year community but fascinating choice)
For after effects i will use FXhome HitFilm and Blender (HUGE community support)
Give it a try and you will save 61,49€/month. ;)
-
Bad news. I deleted all video clips at SS and if needed I'll do it again here. Right now I have more than 3000 clips at AD and maybe I should wait a little bit, but eventually if things get worse all clips will be deleted. When P5 does the same I'm out of micro stock.
-
For me I will use my personal "equalizer".
Both parts can play the game so why should i continue to use their software when they are giving our artist work for free to clients?
Don't get me wrong it's only business so Let's play the free game:
For Premiere i will use Da vinci resolve (free/better and with big community support)
For Photoshop i will use GIMP (free big comunnity support)
For lightroom i will use Darktable (Free, recent 1 year community but fascinating choice)
For after effects i will use FXhome HitFilm and Blender (HUGE community support)
Give it a try and you will save 61,49€/month. ;)
You nailed it! ;) For video editing I all ready use Davinci. Don't like those crashing reports from Adobe.
-
Not good for the purchasers of those so called "download it for free images" either. Once you think you can download a few "free" images, the catch is that, there is a big cancellation fee if you no longer want to download other images.
So in other words is a lose, lose and lose situation for contributors and image purchasers. Always a catch. ::)
-
For me I will use my personal "equalizer".
Both parts can play the game so why should i continue to use their software when they are giving our artist work for free to clients?
Don't get me wrong it's only business so Let's play the free game:
For Premiere i will use Da vinci resolve (free/better and with big community support)
For Photoshop i will use GIMP (free big comunnity support)
For lightroom i will use Darktable (Free, recent 1 year community but fascinating choice)
For after effects i will use FXhome HitFilm and Blender (HUGE community support)
Give it a try and you will save 61,49€/month. ;)
You nailed it! ;) For video editing I all ready use Davinci. Don't like those crashing reports from Adobe.
A designer friend of mine recommended Affinity to my wife who was tired of being held ransom by "The Cloud" and has never looked back. She uses Affinity for both photos and illustration and loves it.
-
Not good for the purchasers of those so called "download it for free images" either. Once you think you can download a few "free" images, the catch is that, there is a big cancellation fee if you no longer want to download other images...
I think you're confusing Adobe Stock's new "Free" section containing 77k images (initially) with the teaser for paid subscriptions (where you get 10 free images when you sign up). The free section doesn't require a sign up and there are no fees at all.
Go back to the original post and follow the link Mat provided to the FAQ
-
If only I were Joe Biden's son Hunter. I would not need to work in photos. I would get millions from China and the Ukraine for doing nothing and having no knowledge/expertise of anything. Just my last name Biden.... But I am not a Biden and I need future image creation and fair pay.....
Fortunately, you did not carry that last name, synonymous with the transition to the new USA.
Please, I'm very busy, but if you want to talk politics, maybe you should start a new thread. How you can observe, we are not amused. And less with the number of families that are suffering in the world, `so that you come with cheap propaganda, at the wrong time and out of place.
-
For me I will use my personal "equalizer".
Both parts can play the game so why should i continue to use their software when they are giving our artist work for free to clients?
Don't get me wrong it's only business so Let's play the free game:
For Premiere i will use Da vinci resolve (free/better and with big community support)
For Photoshop i will use GIMP (free big comunnity support)
For lightroom i will use Darktable (Free, recent 1 year community but fascinating choice)
For after effects i will use FXhome HitFilm and Blender (HUGE community support)
Give it a try and you will save 61,49€/month. ;)
We can start a coalition against AS. It's honestly good software. The open source ones are awesome too. Very good computer programs.
Adobe created the flash, the PDF, .... I can't go against them. I think it is a matter of business.
I think the problem is ours for not being able to unite, with some lawyers who lift every false return or agency accounting error off the ground. That it puts fines to commit to each image shared in networks illegally.
An association with a voice on the planet, we bring color to the information and we are not able to unite, but really, together without sex or kisses, just for the profession and elevate it to a worthy profession. Backed by international associations of Internet users.
United as a real collective. Simple. The fault is ours. AS is a company, and it commands the profit. At the very least, they are not twisted on us. They try.
A strike is the solution, but it is impossible, I know.
-
Lets hope that most of the 'free' results are like the 'elephant' search in photos only.
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&k=elephant&order=relevance&safe_search=1&search_type=filter-select&get_facets=1 (https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aphoto%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aillustration%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Azip_vector%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Avideo%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Atemplate%5D=0&filters%5Bcontent_type%3A3d%5D=0&filters%5Binclude_stock_enterprise%5D=0&filters%5Bis_editorial%5D=0&filters%5Bfree_collection%5D=1&filters%5Bcontent_type%3Aimage%5D=1&k=elephant&order=relevance&safe_search=1&search_type=filter-select&get_facets=1)
-
Here I asked for help to know how many images were necessary to meet the needs of potential clients in a new agency.
The few users who said anything spoke of millions of images.
It may be that for free, millions of files are needed to cover real needs. And we must take it as a campaign to attract new clients.
It may be that it will be beneficial for all, if the client approaches AS and perhaps, the number of users will grow.
-
For me I will use my personal "equalizer".
Both parts can play the game so why should i continue to use their software when they are giving our artist work for free to clients?
Don't get me wrong it's only business so Let's play the free game:
For Premiere i will use Da vinci resolve (free/better and with big community support)
For Photoshop i will use GIMP (free big comunnity support)
For lightroom i will use Darktable (Free, recent 1 year community but fascinating choice)
For after effects i will use FXhome HitFilm and Blender (HUGE community support)
Give it a try and you will save 61,49€/month. ;)
We can start a coalition against AS. It's honestly good software. The open source ones are awesome too. Very good computer programs.
Adobe created the flash, the PDF, .... I can't go against them. I think it is a matter of business.
I think the problem is ours for not being able to unite, with some lawyers who lift every false return or agency accounting error off the ground. That it puts fines to commit to each image shared in networks illegally.
An association with a voice on the planet, we bring color to the information and we are not able to unite, but really, together without sex or kisses, just for the profession and elevate it to a worthy profession. Backed by international associations of Internet users.
United as a real collective. Simple. The fault is ours. AS is a company, and it commands the profit. At the very least, they are not twisted on us. They try.
A strike is the solution, but it is impossible, I know.
Flash was developed by Macromedia, and Adobe bought that company. I used a lot Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver when i worked as webmaster in the beginning of 2000 year.
-
Thanks Alexander.
Abrazo
-
Lets hope that most of the 'free' results are like the 'elephant' search in photos only....
Most of those are Wirestock, and in addition to being spammed with totally irrelevant keywords, they're the weak link in the "Free" collection. That's good news for anyone with content in those categories - as in it's not much in the way of competition for other contributors with decent images.
-
Thanks Alexander.
Abrazo
Igualmente Tenebroso, Saludos!
Siempre me he preguntado, por qué escogiste ese sobre nombre?
-
Later in time, if that's okay with you, I'll give you private access and link, and we'll talk. Later. He's a new Nick, chosen for this war.
-
Hi Everyone,
Moments ago we launched a free collection on Adobe Stock. We'll be sending an email to contributors later today with this announcement but I wanted to give you a heads up in advance.
I expect you will have some (many?) questions and I'm happy to answer any that I can. We have put together a Learn & Support page with details and an anticipated list of FAQ for you here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/free-collection-contributor-information.html
You can view the collection here: https://stock.adobe.com/free
Let me know your questions, I'll be around all day.
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
-
Lets hope that most of the 'free' results are like the 'elephant' search in photos only....
Most of those are Wirestock, and in addition to being spammed with totally irrelevant keywords, they're the weak link in the "Free" collection. That's good news for anyone with content in those categories - as in it's not much in the way of competition for other contributors with decent images.
-
Lets hope that most of the 'free' results are like the 'elephant' search in photos only....
Most of those are Wirestock, and in addition to being spammed with totally irrelevant keywords, they're the weak link in the "Free" collection. That's good news for anyone with content in those categories - as in it's not much in the way of competition for other contributors with decent images.
Therefore, to provide a quality service, they need more money on the table.
That number of files does not cover the needs of the planet. They will improve, AS reads us. But really, that comment from @ ShadySue is important.
The client also mistrusts the free. In addition, it does not give prestige to the free images blog, this company decision is likely to have gaps.
Maybe it will benefit the collaborators and AS?
Indeed, to meet the needs of microstock, it takes millions of images to be competitive.
Perhaps, users will start in the world of legal files and get hooked on downloading and the world of images legally. Maybe new users will come to AS?
Can it be good for everyone?
-
For me I will use my personal "equalizer".
Both parts can play the game so why should i continue to use their software when they are giving our artist work for free to clients?
Don't get me wrong it's only business so Let's play the free game:
For Premiere i will use Da vinci resolve (free/better and with big community support)
For Photoshop i will use GIMP (free big comunnity support)
For lightroom i will use Darktable (Free, recent 1 year community but fascinating choice)
For after effects i will use FXhome HitFilm and Blender (HUGE community support)
Give it a try and you will save 61,49€/month. ;)
We can start a coalition against AS. It's honestly good software. The open source ones are awesome too. Very good computer programs.
Adobe created the flash, the PDF, .... I can't go against them. I think it is a matter of business.
I think the problem is ours for not being able to unite, with some lawyers who lift every false return or agency accounting error off the ground. That it puts fines to commit to each image shared in networks illegally.
An association with a voice on the planet, we bring color to the information and we are not able to unite, but really, together without sex or kisses, just for the profession and elevate it to a worthy profession. Backed by international associations of Internet users.
United as a real collective. Simple. The fault is ours. AS is a company, and it commands the profit. At the very least, they are not twisted on us. They try.
A strike is the solution, but it is impossible, I know.
Flash was developed by Macromedia, and Adobe bought that company. I used a lot Flash, Fireworks and Dreamweaver when i worked as webmaster in the beginning of 2000 year.
Adobe also bought Freehand (Macromedia and previously Aldus), probably the best vector software that ever existed... just to shut it down and get more market share from its complicated, buggy and unstable Illustrator...
-
It is already saturated market, the same by media proposals and by clients, existing and potential. Not a big field is left for the "niches". Only big financial resources will allow to analyse the requests and proposals on the market and react very, very quickly. I think it is naive to trust that AS or somebody else with comparable resources will resist to not flood the market with free content just to shut down the competitors. It is clear that it will request less efforts if it is done by category - the same like supermarkets do. The biggest will do agreements, the smaller ones will disappear. All automated, AI to act.
-
I understand that Adobe wants to offer a free section to draw people away from Unsplash and in principle by having width but not depth and paying artists fairly for the year it looks like a lot of thinking went into it.
If the downloads were limited to 10 files a day, I could maybe somehow get myself used to it.
But at 100 files a day it is a genuine threat to our income.
Adobe is the last good site standing that everyone can join.
Like others have said, we have seen these things before and it always meant our income went down.
istock once had the dollar bin, which I thought was a much better concept. Old files could be moved into that collection where every file just costs a dollar.
But every file had a 30 day clock ticking. After 30 days with no sales, the files were deleted forever.
This gave the dollar bin a playful vibe and many old files lived a long and happy life there.
A variation of this could see the files moved back to the regular collection at higher prices.
Also...every artists then has the option to join (total size of collection was of course limited) and it also was another entry point for the customer to discover artists beyond the usual search.
I wish Adobe all the best, but it sounds like our income will suffer because the quality in that collection is very good.
ETA: I also understand that introducing a free collection allows Adobe to keep our royalties stable, instead of lowering them like SS. It is a complicated world.
-
Reading till this point, considering Mat answers and the Jo Ann valid points, it think it could be a good marketing idea for the artists and for Adobe.
-
Wouldn't it be better for Adobe to offer their software for free to attract people to paying decent rates for stock art? Makes much more sense to me.
-
Wouldn't it be better for Adobe to offer their software for free to attract people to paying decent rates for stock art? Makes much more sense to me.
That does seem to make more sense. I don’t know how many comments I’ve read about people who hate paying the subscription and have switched to other software. Woo them back.
-
Wouldn't it be better for Adobe to offer their software for free to attract people to paying decent rates for stock art?
LOL
Best coment i read since long here
-
AdobeStock never was a contributor's friend.- They are a business, and they have their marketing plans.
On the other hand, Adobe Software is not one of a kind, it is not unique. There is much better software available for the artists. DAVINCI RESOLVE for video (free or paid version), Darktable, ON1 and other for images. Therefore no more Adobe Software subscription plans. This is the way I will pay them back.
-
From Matt
b) Yes, that's the plan. The free only sites are attracting a lot of potential customers. Our goal is to showcase Adobe Stock content and educate them on the value of having a safe license on released content. The end goal is to attract them to the larger, paid collection to entice them to purchase licenses for content outside the free collection.
I understand the "strategy" to increase sales and traffic to AS by enticing Free-Searchers with a promise of better search results, higher quality and model/property released images. But free-searchers will NOT buy. And offering 70K+ quality images will surely satisfy their need. You have just become another browser bookmark in the free photos file.
You will NOT educate Free-Searchers on anything. NOTHING! They don't care about safe license. You are just providing a bigger, better trough for the pigs to feed in. And in doing so, helping to kill the market for contributors.
And free-searchers don't care about your license terms. LOL! They will use any image any way they want.
You are inviting the wretched, bottom-feeders to the house. "Welcome one and all! Enjoy the free photos! And while you are here look around at the stuff you will have to pay for if you don't find what you like." Not gonna happen, Matt. As far back as I can remember, Adobe's marketing strategy meetings are ruthless - from abandoning Apple to subscription software.
STUPID, STUPID, STUPID IDEA!
-
AdobeStock never was a contributor's friend.- They are a business, and they have their marketing plans.
On the other hand, Adobe Software is not one of a kind, it is not unique. There is much better software available for the artists. DAVINCI RESOLVE for video (free or paid version), Darktable, ON1 and other for images. Therefore no more Adobe Software subscription plans. This is the way I will pay them back.
Same here. For start I'll boycott all of their software. Then I'll think about deleting my portfolio. If they wanna play, let's play.
-
Here is my guess....you may never get the real numbers but I will give it a guess. I would guess it is $100 dollars to $ 1 on the money that Adobe makes on the cloud software. For ever $ 100 dollars they earn on cloud software they earn $ 1 dollar on stock photos. They really are and have always been a cloud software company. Maybe someone knows the real numbers of Software to stock photos. With giving away 100 good images a day stock photos can't be the end game. If Adobe makes it 100 images a day images why not just go unlimited images a day ?
-
Here is my guess....you may never get the real numbers but I will give it a guess. I would guess it is $100 dollars to $ 1 on the money that Adobe makes on the cloud software. For ever $ 100 dollars they earn on cloud software they earn $ 1 dollar on stock photos. They really are and have always been a cloud software company. Maybe someone knows the real numbers of Software to stock photos. With giving away 100 good images a day stock photos can't be the end game. If Adobe makes it 100 images a day images why not just go unlimited images a day ?
Adobe wasn't always a cloud software company, but it's a very long way from its origins. And it's true that the pittance that they make licensing stock content is insignificant to the current execs. Take a look at this recent article about their best ever Q3 numbers and rosy outlook for Q4
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/17/adobe-continues-its-streak-of-setting-revenue-reco/ (https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/09/17/adobe-continues-its-streak-of-setting-revenue-reco/)
Jim Pickerell's article on the free section (https://www.selling-stock.com/ViewArticle.aspx?id=8cf3a8f9-8795-4bc4-8ef8-d699da5f165e)mentioned that he estimates Adobe Stock's annual revenue at $250 million.
If you look at Adobe's Q3 earnings summary and add their expectation for Q4 2020 to their actual for the 9 months YTD, it's $12.79 billion for the whole year. So closer to 50 to 1 than 100 to 1, but still...
https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2020/Adobe-Reports-Record-Revenue-Sept/default.aspx (https://news.adobe.com/news/news-details/2020/Adobe-Reports-Record-Revenue-Sept/default.aspx)
The major problem as I see it was that some factory suppliers were willing to participate in this scheme. They've given Adobe cover to make this look less destructive than it actually is.
-
https://stock.adobe.com/search?k=dystopia
-
Free images: Contributor abuse.
Am l interested? Hell NO!
-
100 images a day is basically unlimited images a day. Only the scope of those images is preventing more harm. Adobe would give for free all content if it was theirs to lock in many creatives into their software and jack up their prices. But the truth is better and cheaper software is growing everywhere.
I have not made the jump yet on photoshop but when I started 2 years ago with footage I tried Davinci and Premiere+Adobe AE made my numbers and purchased my Davinci Resolve Studio Version. Very glad I took that route. It has saved me lots of money and I think at this point it is much more capable that Premiere + After Effects together. In the photo department they are still king but not in the way they were 2 years ago. At this pace Photoshop will also loose leadership soon.
Adobe is floating on a fluffy cloud because the subscription pill they forced to take to many. But that have given a lot of air into the sails of competitors.......
Here is my guess....you may never get the real numbers but I will give it a guess. I would guess it is $100 dollars to $ 1 on the money that Adobe makes on the cloud software. For ever $ 100 dollars they earn on cloud software they earn $ 1 dollar on stock photos. They really are and have always been a cloud software company. Maybe someone knows the real numbers of Software to stock photos. With giving away 100 good images a day stock photos can't be the end game. If Adobe makes it 100 images a day images why not just go unlimited images a day ?
-
In the photo department they are still king but not in the way they were 2 years ago. At this pace Photoshop will also loose leadership soon.
I don't think they are king in that department. I have Lightroom due to the bonus brogram, but I don't use it. I prefer Luminar, not just because it is not a subscription-softwear, but because it can do all the basic things Lightroom can do as well. Maybe there might be some in-deptht functions only Lightroom has, but how many people are willing to spend 3 hours editing photos for microstock where you get cents for an image? The basic functions are more than enough for that and Luminar only costs you a fraction of Lightroom and there are quite a few softwears like this that offer all the basic functions needed.
However, sadly I have not found a good replacement for photoshop yet, due to photoshops very useful option to use hand-written scripts with the program. I know there are some other softwears like Affinity Photo that promised they will implement it and when the day comes and I don't get free photoshop from the Bonus program, I will gladly switch over. And all of this not because of some grudge with Adobe because of some free image gallery, but because I absolutely detest subscription model softwear. I held on to my very old Photoshop version as long as I could before it became impossible to run it on a modern computer. I don't like it. I want to pay money for a softwear - even if it is an expensive one - if and when I have the money for it.
-
I haven't done this myself, but many people have transitioned from Illustrator and Photoshop to Affinity Designer and Affinity Photo.
At least in the groups I am in.
I bought the software too, I have used it on my iPad and the vector program seems good.
It is a one off fee.
-
Hi Everyone,
I'm back online and wanted to let you know that I've noted your feedback from over the weekend and will be sharing it with the team when appropriate. Feel free to send me a direct email if you have any questions you aren't comfortable sharing in the forum. Otherwise, if you have any specific questions, I'm happy to answer them here.
-Mat
-
I propose that you limit the maximum number of downloads to 10 photos per day, 2 videos, 5 illustrations ... and add 1 extra free per photo purchased with real money
-
I propose that you limit the maximum number of downloads to 10 photos per day, 2 videos, 5 illustrations ... and add 1 extra free per photo purchased with real money
+1
-
I propose that you limit the maximum number of downloads to 10 photos per day, 2 videos, 5 illustrations ... and add 1 extra free per photo purchased with real money
I propose they allow 5 free downloads per day of their software per person.
-
I propose that you limit the maximum number of downloads to 10 photos per day, 2 videos, 5 illustrations ... and add 1 extra free per photo purchased with real money
Or have a daily random roulette wheel with 1 free photo, 1 free video, and 1 free illustration. The current menu on offer is so disrespectful to all contributors.
-
It is a thoughtful and elaborate strategy. Start up. Do not give more ideas, please, the agencies read this. The market is evolving. Do not do the work of the rest of the agencies.
-
This came up in my FB feed. I suppose this is from the paid collection.
Everything will be free soon or at least will be so cheap that you won't be able to make anything.
It seems the only option will be with curated sites where the images are selected.
-
This came up in my FB feed. I suppose this is from the paid collection.
Everything will be free soon or at least will be so cheap that you won't be able to make anything.
It seems the only option will be with curated sites where the images are selected.
Hi Mir,
That is different than what is being discussed in this thread. Since the beginning of Adobe Stock there has been a "first month free" promotion with the popular 10 download per month plan. To be clear, all of those downloads have resulted in a standard royalty paid to the contributor based on the paid price of the plan.
-Mat
-
I imagine a bakery in my town, which is offering two kinds of bread, one is free of charge and the other one you have to pay for. An now I compare this to Matts argument:
"The end goal is to attract them to the larger, paid collection to entice them to purchase licenses for content outside the free collection."
What a wonderful business idea!!!!
-
Mat,
Free images doesn't make people feel "wow, I need this service, I'm going to pay for it".
No.
They just want more free images and download what they can get free of charge, then go to the next free site, and so on.
Free makes our work of less value, and Adobe as a stock agency will lose its credibility and look like Pexels, Unsplash, whatever xzyqw sites there are.
I'd expect stock agencies to be a little more inventive with the services you offer. Is "Free" really the only thing you come up with??
-
If a company opens a roadside bar. You know the business you are opening. If you play live music, you know what type of client will approach, depending on the type of music, it is not the same, live classical music than a heavy group.
If the fourth and fifth drinks are free, you will have to couple muscle and brain with the right of admission at the door so that the business does not close.
If you want an elite place, specialists in unique cocktails, entry by invitation and reservation, on the terrace of a business center. You know the type of business you have.
You can cancel the promotion in 60 days. Last 30 days free, enjoy it.
To veteran clients, give them the same subscription fee, for one year, free images. For the new ones, free subscription for six months, a commitment to stay for one year. Pay only the commission to each collaborator for each image downloaded from your clients.
And launch an advertising campaign, that AS is the company that every month, has the highest number and quality of files on offer of all agencies.
And to celebrate, free photos for new ones. Free for loyal customers. And payment of commissions to collaborators.
Understanding that in this historic moment that the planet is living, AS has a commitment to humanity.
Merry Christmas to all.
And I bring my talent to the AS Agency, free. But don't get used to it.
-
Competing with free images? Starting to make some other agencies a lot more attractive than they were before this.
-
Everyone knows the business they intend to have. Logically, elite customers will not consume burned images. Whether 70k or 1 million free images, there are clients who cannot afford to publish burned images. Free images are burned images, with a zero value.
-
Competing with free images? Starting to make some other agencies a lot more attractive than they were before this.
Except that Adobe is trying to woo customers away from these 'other agencies' which have the temerity to charge a few cents per image.
-
I imagine a bakery in my town, which is offering two kinds of bread, one is free of charge and the other one you have to pay for. An now I compare this to Matts argument:
"The end goal is to attract them to the larger, paid collection to entice them to purchase licenses for content outside the free collection."
What a wonderful business idea!!!!
While I don't like the idea of eat free and maybe you'll pay some other day, as in free images, I want to explain why your bakery comparison is wrong.
Imagine a bakery that offers a free dinner roll as a sample of their baking, to get people in the door to buy their other breads. :)
Imagine a grocery store that has free samples of pizza, or sausages, or cookies, introducing people to the product.
Imagine a photo agency that offers some selected free images to potential buyers, to get the buyers to see the rest of the collection?
Now, here's something. 100 is far too many. Some places offer a free photo of the day, to get repeat visits. But maybe that's bad too because the suckers will just come, get the one, each day, and leave. 10 a day and people will search, more likely to be selective to find the best choices, for their limited allotment. They will be more likely to keep coming back, which is the idea, isn't it? Not one visit, download the limit and they have 100 images to file away. Why come back? Lower the number, make them look and become familiar with the products that are available.
Some people hedged around another promotional idea, buy four images, get one from the free collection, FREE. Drive purchases and paid downloads, not open the door and get the people who just want free lunch. Not only that, I'll contend that people who take free images are more often, people who will never buy any image, never have before, they are just free image people. They started that way and they aren't going to suddenly pay, even if Adobe has the best curated and quality images. The free image people are basically "free image people".
Adobe shouldn't be looking at how to get people to come to download free images, but instead, how to get people to come and then change into image buyers. Of course they are a billion dollar company and have much smarter people than I on their staff. They also have corporate power intimidation, with meetings, committees and top people who have the highest positions saying things like "I have a new idea, what do you think of this?" asking people who fear they will lose their job for disagreeing or standing up and saying, that's not a good idea. :-\
Anyway, here we are, I'm positive that Adobe will be closely monitoring visitors, new customers, downloads, income, and all the other related data. I trust them to be flexible and adjust if this is not playing out the way they predicted.
In other words, while I don't really like the idea nor embrace the future of free as a plan that will build and attract new paying customers... I don't run the company, so I'll just watch and wait and see how this turns out. I'm certainly not going delete my files, shut down my account, and crawl into a cave, which only hurts my earnings, not the company? Boycott or closing my account isn't an effective method at all, for making change.
A gnat going through the turbine blades on a jet engine, isn't going to slow anything down or make a difference.
Roll with the punches, adapt and adjust.
-
Adobe is not a microstock company. Adobe acquired a microstock company. The microstock is a tool for your software.
AS is an Adobe satellite company. One more department. If you generate income that matches the investment of the Fotolia acquisition, it is sufficient. They have their business. Adobe is not a microstock agency.
We will see how the microstock agencies counter this commercial blow to the industry.
-
Adobe shouldn't be looking at how to get people to come to download free images, but instead, how to get people to come and then change into image buyers. ... They also have corporate power intimidation, with meetings, committees and top people who have the highest positions saying things like "I have a new idea, what do you think of this?" asking people who fear they will lose their job for disagreeing or standing up and saying, that's not a good idea. :-\
It's called "groupthink," Pete, and it's been the death of many good things.
The more I ponder this situation, the more disappointed I am in Adobe.
Just a few months ago, AS seemed like the closest thing to a knight in shining armor that we content creators were likely to find… precisely because they didn't *have* to wring every penny out of their stock contributors (who also happen to be some of the most reliable customers of their software).
No longer, alas.
-
Adobe shouldn't be looking at how to get people to come to download free images, but instead, how to get people to come and then change into image buyers. ... They also have corporate power intimidation, with meetings, committees and top people who have the highest positions saying things like "I have a new idea, what do you think of this?" asking people who fear they will lose their job for disagreeing or standing up and saying, that's not a good idea. :-\
It's called "group think," Pete, and it's been the death of many good things.
The more I ponder this situation, the more disappointed I am in Adobe.
Just a few months ago, AS seemed like the closest thing to a knight in shining armor that we content creators were likely to find… precisely because they didn't *have* to wring every penny out of their stock contributors (who also happen to be some of the most reliable customers of their software).
No longer, alas.
They were just waiting for their moment.
There is no knight in shining armour. The one which might, or might not, be is like a Secret Society, complete with fancy handshakes.
-
There is no knight in shining armour. The one which might, or might not, be is like a Secret Society, complete with fancy handshakes.
Sounds like you might be talking about Stocksy???
-
There is no knight in shining armour. The one which might, or might not, be is like a Secret Society, complete with fancy handshakes.
Sounds like you might be talking about Stocksy???
FWIW there never was a knight in shining armour. All microstock agencies are based on the servitude of minions who for some bizarre reason idolize a select few people and also think\thought they were part of a community. You are/were part of a community to supply images at your cost so that a company/corporation can profit heavily from you.
As for Stocksy presuming that is who you meant they are a bit different. I was one of the few who was offered front row seats when they started but declined because I did not see the vision and was seriously cashing in over at Istock. I 100% understood/understand the concept of Stocksy and think it is great but it was not a fit for me then and speeding up the truck to today I still don't think it is fit for me, mainly due to what I shoot.
Again presuming you are talking about Stocksy, I wish all agencies would do what they do, inspect images for content and quality and reject images because it is not what the agency wants to sell and/or just pure crap. Stocksy is a curated collection (very similar to the way it used to be when all the main agencies were hypothetically closed) and either you produce the content the agency wants or you don't. I am certain I could get my work into Stocksy, but I am not prepared to give up what I have to have 50-250 images on their site, I don't see the financial incentive.
Apart from that little rant... you are only fooling yourself if you think any agency needs you.
-
The question is, do we need agencies to sell?
-
Apart from that little rant... you are only fooling yourself if you think any agency needs you.
Yeah, 'tis true.
I'm 74 years old with a long, happy, healthy, productive, and fulfilling life behind me. This 11-12 year fling with stock has never been more to me than a way to productively use the nature photography that I most love to do. I will keep doing it as long as I physically can, because it's what I most love to do. I'm lucky, and I know it.
The depressing part for me is what it means for those who hoped to earn a decent living with their creative endeavors.
-
So, the free collection has been out for a week today.
Anyone notices a rise in sales, like Adobe expected? Because so far I certainly haven't. Not that I expected it, but who knows, maybe the increasement in sales will come once people have used up all their 70.000 free images? Oh, wait, but in a year they will be replaced by new images. So that will probably never happen....
-
There is no knight in shining armour. The one which might, or might not, be is like a Secret Society, complete with fancy handshakes.
Sounds like you might be talking about Stocksy???
lool :-)
Anyway i see here a lot of brainstorming made for independent commercial companies, full of themselves. This is repeating during years. Always with the same result. May be they have used some ideas generated here. It didn't affect positively the contributors, it just helped these companies to grow or to prolong their life. It was useful for them only. They care about their incomes, not ours. Their actions often reflect a conflict of interest between wholesale/retail and manufacturers.
-
The question is, do we need agencies to sell?
Unless someone comes up with something truly innovative and scaled up the answer for 95% is yes.
-
.
-
The question is, do we need agencies to sell?
I find this a valid point. If giving free is the point then anyone can launch their website and give their content for free. To monetize they can apply for adsense or offer subscription if they grow.
-
Competing with free images? Starting to make some other agencies a lot more attractive than they were before this.
Except that Adobe is trying to woo customers away from these 'other agencies' which have the temerity to charge a few cents per image.
Well, free is really few cents…
(And somebody said, times ago, "if it is free, you are the product")
-
This scheme is worse than free. There is a problem using free sites commercially as there is no indemnity and no way of knowing if the product is stolen or not. With the Adobe images you get a free image plus the indemnity thrown in, that in effect makes these images the best deal in stock.
-
This scheme is worse than free. There is a problem using free sites commercially as there is no indemnity and no way of knowing if the product is stolen or not. With the Adobe images you get a free image plus the indemnity thrown in, that in effect makes these images the best deal in stock.
Yes, and that is an excellent observation.
Methinks Adobe actually has found the silver bullet… for itself.
AS may now sink all the other sites that scream "FREE!!!!!!" even as it also sinks all creatives except those privileged few whom it has chosen to contribute to its own safe-and-free collection.
-
So, the free collection has been out for a week today.
Anyone notices a rise in sales, like Adobe expected? Because so far I certainly haven't.
I haven't either.
After a lovely run of sales right before the free collection emerged, my sales abruptly dropped to zero. Coincidence?
-
FWIW there never was a knight in shining armour.
Apart from that little rant... you are only fooling yourself if you think any agency needs you.
Sorry for cutting out the middle bits, but right and right. Agencies are not created or designed to be our friends or financial supporters, they are a business, to make the owners money. We're just a necessity that supplies the product to them.
When people say they are removing images and closing accounts and "ha ha, I'll show them" the agencies don't care. The supply far outstrips the demand at this point. We aren't individuals, and if someone is truly an artist, nothing has changed since the earliest artists, pay doesn't equal the training, investment, skills and efforts, and never has.
So, the free collection has been out for a week today.
Anyone notices a rise in sales, like Adobe expected? Because so far I certainly haven't. Not that I expected it, but who knows, maybe the increasement in sales will come once people have used up all their 70.000 free images? Oh, wait, but in a year they will be replaced by new images. So that will probably never happen....
Actually yes I have, but honestly, the time period is too short to be making statements about up or down or any conclusions. Wait a few months to see the trend.
My earnings are up this week. They could be down next week. How do I conclude anything was directly a result of Free Images, positive or negative? ??? For all I know or expect, the free images could do nothing, except feed the people who like to collect free images.
-
Is there any editorial in the free collection?
-
The question is, do we need agencies to sell?
Unless someone comes up with something truly innovative and scaled up the answer for 95% is yes.
We are going very very very very advanced. I don't know if the work team will be rewarded for the effort, but we are having fun creating the platform. It is not a microstock agency, it is a group of artists who sell their products. There are quite a few small details, as it is not an agency, nor does it think how agencies think. The biggest problem is still space, especially in videos.
-
The question is, do we need agencies to sell?
Unless someone comes up with something truly innovative and scaled up the answer for 95% is yes.
We are going very very very very advanced. I don't know if the work team will be rewarded for the effort, but we are having fun creating the platform. It is not a microstock agency, it is a group of artists who sell their products. There are quite a few small details, as it is not an agency, nor does it think how agencies think. The biggest problem is still space, especially in videos.
Who is "we"?
-
Is there any editorial in the free collection?
You can do a search yourself to see - right now, nothing
The overall numbers appear to have crept up slightly (about 100 more) but when you look at individual categories, it's not clear where. Another odd stat is that there are 10 images in the free section that are not included when "Safe Search" is enabled - the default. No easy way to know exactly what that is - free nudes??
-
"WE" We are a group of friends, the least crazy is me.
A group of trusted friends throughout years of internet wars, other wars.
Translation of the first paragraph, talented friends to navigate the internet.
People who have nothing to do with this business. Everything came up for carom. I arrived at the worst moment in the microstock business. But it may be the best time. Since it is as simple as skipping the middleman. And what are friends for if they don't support you when you need them?
A group of very crazy crazy people. They do not know or have anything that relates to this world of microstock.
You actually know them without knowing it. They are represented in the first scene of the Titanic. People from the neighborhood, from the street, playing cards the passage of the great ship, they do not live life, they drink life and they allow themselves, being poor, to obtain the ticket for a great trip. A historical journey. Eternal in our memory.
People who have nothing to lose, except their time, because they are my friends from other projects more complicated than this topic. Of course, people with great talent.
There are people from the USA, you can speak English, without having to suffer my texts.
I have already done my advertising, we continue with the AS thread. I've already got my minute of glory.
Subject of this thread, Adobe.
-
Is there any editorial in the free collection?
You can do a search yourself to see - right now, nothing
The overall numbers appear to have crept up slightly (about 100 more) but when you look at individual categories, it's not clear where. Another odd stat is that there are 10 images in the free section that are not included when "Safe Search" is enabled - the default. No easy way to know exactly what that is - free nudes??
-
Is there any editorial in the free collection?
You can do a search yourself to see - right now, nothing
The overall numbers appear to have crept up slightly (about 100 more) but when you look at individual categories, it's not clear where. Another odd stat is that there are 10 images in the free section that are not included when "Safe Search" is enabled - the default. No easy way to know exactly what that is - free nudes??
free nudes??
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
-
The adobe free collection is just the first step towards 'All You Can Download'.
Get ready for that exciting announcement later next year.
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
I wondered that too. Seems like an awfully big temptation to some.
Maybe it's best *not* to be among the select few! ;)
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Since none of the agencies seem to have any controls/checks, and none seem to do anything about it even when the stolen images are pointed out, maybe we all should just take a “if you can’t beat em, join em” attitude and start beefing up our ports with stolen images. The agencies don’t seem to care....a sale is a sale is a sale...no matter where it comes from.
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
So it's down to us to police adobestock .
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
So it's down to us to police adobestock .
But… of course! Isn't that always the way it is?
-
Against the terms maybe but policing it is going to be hard.
If anyone can sign up for a free collection with no real vetting theres nothing stopping them using those free images to upload elsewhere.
It already happens a lot with stuff taken off Unsplash and so on.
I just cant see how giving full resolution free *good* images, in large numbers per day isnt going to get abused in similar ways.
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
And you think thieves care?
-
Even people who pay for images don’t read the license terms. Why would people downloading free images bother to read them? Also, Adobe feels they’ll somehow be educating people, but how? You can download the images just by clicking the button. And the search is set by default to your last search parameters, so anyone downloading free images will have free images as their search automatically next time they visit. I just don’t see how this 1) educates anyone about anything and 2) encourages people to pay for images or even to see images they have to pay to license. I don’t even see how it will get more people to license Adobe software. If you feel images should be free, you most likely feel software should be free too.
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
So it's down to us to police adobestock .
But… of course! Isn't that always the way it is?
Major agencies have the technical means to "police" similars. Then the answer is : they are not interested to do the same in the interest of contributors.
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
So it's down to us to police adobestock .
Does anyone here have any images in this FREE program? It's difficult for someone to steal my images, using free downloads, if none are there?
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
So it's down to us to police adobestock .
Does anyone here have any images in this FREE program? It's difficult for someone to steal my images, using free downloads, if none are there?
Exactly as I said above:
Maybe it's best *not* to be among the select few! ;)
-
I wonder how many people will take these free images the reupload them to this and other sites as their own to try to sell them.
This is going on at "another major agency" quite a bit at the moment.
What controls/checks are there the images and licences arent being misued?
Our license terms make it clear that this isn't allowed. If any contributor believes his content was misused and submitted by someone else we call out in our Contributor ToU, section 4 that we ask to notify us. https://wwwimages2.adobe.com/content/dam/cc/en/legal/servicetou/Adobe_Stock_Contributor_Agreement_Addl_Terms_en_US_20200416.pdf
thanks,
Mat
And you think thieves care?
i dont really care about thieves - they'll never buy images in the first place! ignore things over which you have no control, work on things you CAN control & your stress levels will decrease (12 step programs adopted these ideas from the ancient stoics!)
-
If free images are uploaded for sale elsewhere what actual damages can be claimed as there is no lost income?......
-
A commercial on TV said "free-free-free-free-free".... everyone loses with free. If free images are resold , everyone loses. It is a numbers game. The more free images out there stolen or not the less likely you will sell your not so free images.
-
If free images are uploaded for sale elsewhere what actual damages can be claimed as there is no lost income?......
Potential income from those same images in the future and/or on other sites?
-
If free images are uploaded for sale elsewhere what actual damages can be claimed as there is no lost income?......
Potential income from those same images in the future and/or on other sites?
I'm no lawyer but thats hard to prove I would think. I'm genuinely interested if there are any legal experts out there as I really don't know the answer.
-
They are images that have the legal backing of owning copyright. Only the author is authorized to decide on his work. Free is not the absence of copyright or public domain file. There are countries that do not allow profit from images in the public domain, others do.
They are free files in a promotion, it does not mean that they do not have an author or rights.
-
Those images have been paid for and sold, they are only free for promotional customers. The author has not given them free, he has charged for those images.
-
The value of each file, be it a lot or a little, whether burned or not, does not eliminate its value. That promotion is temporary. The files have their owners and all legal rights. Tomorrow you can sell those images, the author at the price you want and where you want.
-
As for receiving money for claiming a profit by third parties without consent, it is something related to science fiction. Whether images are free or not. Claim from an agency the money charged for an image of you sold by another user, demand your money, and you will have the answer to theory and reality.
-
...if I were a CEO of Adobe Inc, I would do the following: 1) if Adobe's sell department reports me an unreasonable but sensitive sell drop in stock content, I would call off the program "free-content"... 2) if the program "free-content" does not increase new subscribers above what Adobe usually has, I would call off the program... :)
-
The free collection has grown - not by a huge number, but the total today was 78,094 vs. 77,283 on Oct 15
Videos, illustrations & 3D are the same as before.
Vectors shrank by 25 - I hadn't expected to see things leave before the 1 year commitment was up.
Photos grew by 629. That appears to be one new portfolio added, Eugenio Marongiu
https://stock.adobe.com/search/free?creator_id=200924422
The other note is that the undiscovered content in Free is greater by 609 images - possibly that's the newly added portfolio.
Either no one is downloading the free images, or the free downloads aren't being tallied (although you'd hope they were), o the undiscovered content numbers are not refreshed very often as downloads occur.
Given how big the download counts are at other free sites, I had assumed we would see some huge decrease in undiscovered content in Adobe's Free section as downloads took off...
-
And why would people want to download from ASF?
1. Unsplash is also free
2. Content quality is same or better
3. You don't need to create an account/login
If ASF was launched in 2002, it would have been very popular.
-
Either no one is downloading the free images, or the free downloads aren't being tallied (although you'd hope they were), or that the undiscovered content numbers are refreshed very often as downloads occur. Given how big the download counts are at other free sites, I had assumed we would see some huge decrease in undiscovered content in Adobe's Free section as downloads took off...
But Adobe says that the undiscovered filter may not be updated in real time. For all we know it may be updated once a week only, so I would not rely on these numbers to be accurate.
And why would people want to download from ASF?
1. Unsplash is also free
2. Content quality is same or better
3. You don't need to create an account/login
If ASF was launched in 2002, it would have been very popular.
I don't think that word got around to people who don't look for photos on Adobe that there are now free images so fast. It takes time. Right now, when you google for "Free Stock images", Adobe doesn't even come up on the first page (Shutterstock comes in first by the way ... ::)), so it's not easy for people who want free images to get to know about this.
But I expect that at least the people who have a Adobe account + subscription already would also download the free images. If you're here anyways already, and are paying for content, why not take the free content along?
-
On the plus side we can download the free images and if appropriate to your work, use part or all of the free image to form a composite new image and upload to sell back on Adobe etc
-
On the plus side we can download the free images and if appropriate to your work, use part or all of the free image to form a composite new image and upload to sell back on Adobe etc
No, this is not allowed.
-Mat
-
On the plus side we can download the free images and if appropriate to your work, use part or all of the free image to form a composite new image and upload to sell back on Adobe etc
No, this is not allowed.
-Mat
It is not allowed, but people will be doing this because it is made possible.
-
Matt. Do you think it is a good sign that people only viewed and still didn't comment? Not good feeling really. The pattern is already known
I expect there to be questions and concerns from the contributors which is exactly why I started this conversation before the email went out. I know many people read the posts in this forum without commenting so to answer your specific question, I don't "view" that as a sign in any way.
I can assure you that I've been asking hard questions of the team and I genuinely believe this program has the potential to benefit contributors in several ways. I'll share a couple of key takeaways from my original questions here.
First, the contributors with content in the free collection were compensated in advance for their participation. While it's limited to select contributors now, we'll allow others to participate as time goes on. The content in the free collection will be rotating to keep it fresh and relevant. As content leaves the free collection, it returns to the paid collection.
Second, and I believe most importantly, if you browse the Adobe Stock free collection, you'll see that there are a lot of assets that cover a wide range of subjects, but no one particular subject has a deep selection to choose from. That is by design. When someone who typically only uses free sites visits Adobe Stock, they now have the opportunuity to see more search results beyond free. This is a potential customer base that was not visiting paid sites historically. The result should be an expanded market for paying customers.
I welcome your feedback and look forward to the conversation.
-Mat
stop talking from your behind man, you dont believe that at all, you just back your employer, you did that over the backs of your colleagues at Fotolia and now you are doing it again. a free image collection brings no benefit to anyone other than the customer, it just devalues the value of an image even further.
-
@MatHayward
Is there any download limit per day/week? Can someone download all 70.000 assets without any time limit if they want?
@theendup...yes, there is a download limit. For customers without a paid subscription or credits, they are limited to a maximum of 100 downloads per day. This number is subject to change as we gather more data on customer behavior.
Thanks for the question.
-Mat
thats not a download limit, just takes a bit more time to download 70k free images
-
In my opinion this is way too many assets at way too high a quality level for a free collection. It would be one thing to offer a much smaller rotating collection of free content meant to showcase as many contributors as possible and actually highlight the paid content. This just looks like giving up and saying even Adobe apparently can't/won't stand up to the Pixabay crowd.
This line from the FAQ is particularly tone deaf to me:
Why does Adobe Stock offer a free collection? Won't it directly compete with the paid collection?
There is a growing demand for free content.
So what? There are always people who want everything for free. There is a growing demand for free software too, will there be a rotating free app in Creative Cloud each year? Adobe's contributors are also it's customers, and it certainly feels like a slap in the face to people who've paid thousands of dollars for Adobe apps over many years.
I feel a little silly now for singing Adobe's praises so loudly over the last year, and sending all my clients there. I was so pleased with all the open communication, the Discord communities, the webinars, the time and patience Mat spends here answering questions....but a move like this from the last agency I can say I actually trusted is just exhausting and deeply disheartening.
I've patiently explained to people countless times the advantages of properly licensing images from a trusted agency over downloading from the free sites. This just muddies the waters further for people who think all images should be free in the first place.
I'm really sorry you feel that way Amanda. I have no intention of lowering my threshold for contributor advocacy and will continue to answer as many questions as I can in as transparent a way possible here in MSG, in the Adobe Stock Contributor Discord channel, in the Adobe Stock contributor forum, in the webinars, my personal social media, frankly anywhere and everywhere people will listen to what I have to say. In other words, I respect your position and the opinions you have shared in your post and I will do everything I can to see to it your faith is restored and that you will again be singing the praises of Adobe soon.
I've seen a number of tongue-in-cheek comments here about Adobe giving away software. I would like to remind you that we have given away tens of thousands of complimentary subscriptions through the Adobe Stock contributor Bonus Progam over the past couple of years and that we are continuing the tradition again with the 2020 program. So to answer your specific question... yes, for productive contributors Adobe is giving away a free app each year. If qualified, you can choose which app you want so technically, that could be considered a rotating app should you want it to be. I'm not trying to make light of your point but rather am pointing out that we've put a lot of heart-felt effort into making sure contributors know how much they are appreciated and to do so, we are willing to make considerable investments.
On that note, there was another big announcement from Adobe Stock today. While the other offical announcement was in tandem with the free collection, I feel it warrants a separate thread and conversation and will be posting about it here shortly.
Thanks again for the feedback. It is important for us to hear.
Mat
it wasnt free, you had to upload 300 new images and have them approved, adobe made money on the back of that, and creating 300 images is a hell of a lot of work
you seem to have trouble with the meaning of simple words like 'free' and 'limit' etc
-
it wasnt free, you had to upload 300 new images and have them approved, adobe made money on the back of that, and creating 300 images is a hell of a lot of work
you seem to have trouble with the meaning of simple words like 'free' and 'limit' etc
first, please stop the ad hominem attacks on Matt you made earlier
you seem to have trouble with simple words too!! - there was NO CHARGE for the bonus -- there was an incentive for uploads and a reward was given. commonly done for all sorts of transactions -'buy 2 get one free', 'earn 1000 pts for a reward',etc
-
This might be fun...lets have a guessing game . how much do you think Adobe paid the stock house's for free images. I have not heard if that paid price is for lifetime but for the purpose of this game lets say it is for lifetime for Adobe to giveaway. I guess six dollars an image which would be $420,000 for 70,000 images. What is your guess ?
-
I believe Mat said earlier in this thread (or it might have been in Jim Pickerell's article) that the deal was for one year. After that the images rotate back into the paid collection.
-
Jo Ann if it is for one year that is a lot better. I did not hear that. Well we can change the rules of the game for one year. I still put my price point at $ 6 bucks.
-
I believe Mat said earlier in this thread (or it might have been in Jim Pickerell's article) that the deal was for one year. After that the images rotate back into the paid collection.
And also, the pay was calculated to be more than the amount the image would have received during a normal year. In theory, no contributor lost anything in the one year license deal, allowing free downloads.
While Adobe paid for them and will get no income directly for those free downloads.
-
And also, the pay was calculated to be more than the amount the image would have received during a normal year. In theory, no contributor lostWhile Adobe paid for them and will get no income directly for those free downloads.
They will get income if people download the free images, use them to create new images, then sell them on Adobe. 😂
-
And also, the pay was calculated to be more than the amount the image would have received during a normal year. In theory, no contributor lost. While Adobe paid for them and will get no income directly for those free downloads.
They will get income if people download the free images, use them to create new images, then sell them on Adobe. 😂
Or more likely SS? :-X Which won't help AS? (https://i.postimg.cc/QxNFsBSL/canofworms.gif)
We need to assume that most people are honest and understand the terms, not look for the worst in everyone and everything? But you are right, unfortunately, "some people" will turn this crooked and sideways.
-
And also, the pay was calculated to be more than the amount the image would have received during a normal year. In theory, no contributor lost. While Adobe paid for them and will get no income directly for those free downloads.
They will get income if people download the free images, use them to create new images, then sell them on Adobe. 😂
Or more likely SS? :-X Which won't help AS? (https://i.postimg.cc/QxNFsBSL/canofworms.gif)
We need to assume that most people are honest and understand the terms, not look for the worst in everyone and everything? But you are right, unfortunately, "some people" will turn this crooked and sideways.
During my long career as a human being I have realized that, most of the time, those who look for the worst in everyone and everything are generally those who behave exactly like those they criticize…
-
Adobe and before them Fotolia is sadly one of the WORST agencies for policing copyright infringements.
Some of their best selling Christmas and Easter vectors are clearly slightly edited versions of ones stolen from an IS exclusive edited and reuploaded. I contacted them over it a long time ago and the answer was (paraphrasing) we aren't bothered unless the copyright holder tells us.
So good luck with them caring when the free stuff starts showing up on other sites.
-
During my long career as a human being I have realized that, most of the time, those who look for the worst in everyone and everything are generally those who behave exactly like those they criticize…
PRIME EXAMPLE = Donald J. Trump
-
During my long career as a human being I have realized that, most of the time, those who look for the worst in everyone and everything are generally those who behave exactly like those they criticize…
PRIME EXAMPLE = Donald J. Trump
Why do you bring most discussions to politics?
It's really a habit with you…
-
During my long career as a human being I have realized that, most of the time, those who look for the worst in everyone and everything are generally those who behave exactly like those they criticize…
PRIME EXAMPLE = Donald J. Trump
Why do you bring most discussions to politics?
It's really a habit with you…
Clearly you had someone in mind when you made YOUR comment. Why do you always jump on the denigrating others bandwagon? It’s really a habit with you and a couple of others here. Since you quoted Uncle Pete and me when you said it, there’s a 50% chance you were talking about me. ::)
Here in the US we’ve had four years of a loud-mouthed, disgusting bully who calls himself president. This election, right now, is foremost on our minds. Right now Biden is winning the electoral college, and spoiled little baby bully that he is, Trump’s holding up the counts because he’s a sore loser. I suspect that’s why Martha is bringing the conversation around to politics.
-
During my long career as a human being I have realized that, most of the time, those who look for the worst in everyone and everything are generally those who behave exactly like those they criticize…
PRIME EXAMPLE = Donald J. Trump
Why do you bring most discussions to politics?
It's really a habit with you…
Clearly you had someone in mind when you made YOUR comment. Why do you always jump on the denigrating others bandwagon? It’s really a habit with you and a couple of others here. Since you quoted Uncle Pete and me when you said it, there’s a 50% chance you were talking about me. ::)
Here in the US we’ve had four years of a loud-mouthed, disgusting bully who calls himself president. This election, right now, is foremost on our minds. Right now Biden is winning the electoral college, and spoiled little baby bully that he is, Trump’s holding up the counts because he’s a sore loser. I suspect that’s why Martha is bringing the conversation around to politics.
Clearly, really?
In my country, they say that "the guilty always feel targeted", that's apparently what you feel (your words, not mine), even if, frankly, my comment was only general and did not target anyone in particular.
As far as politics is concerned, for me Trump or Biden, Democrap or Repooblicans is the same S.... as it is for all the politicians in the world.
The world, has obvious problems and these problems are mainly the result of politicians, their ego and their excessive thirst for power.
-
During my long career as a human being I have realized that, most of the time, those who look for the worst in everyone and everything are generally those who behave exactly like those they criticize…
PRIME EXAMPLE = Donald J. Trump
Why do you bring most discussions to politics?
It's really a habit with you…
Hey, pal, if the shoe pinches… squeal! :D :D :D :D :D
-
- Connected to the above, the free section has content from Wavebreak media (~14,200 images in WavebreakMediaMicro and wavebreak3), Rawpixel.com (over 10,000), Wirestock (~5,300), Gstudio (~4,000), Jeremy Bishop (~4,000), Good Studio (~3,000), Artinspiring (~4,000), Caia Image (~4,000), Jacob Lund (~7,000), Visual Generation (~4,000) Hero Images (~7,000), Morgan (111). This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content.
I'm interested that are those very known microstock contributors paid to be included in the free collection? Or do they get even paid something for free downloads? As in general I think it would be very hard to get that much content from them to be offered for free and make a promise for possible better sales in somewhere future.
I understand the free concept very well. It has over two years that we made a customer survey which resulted that in Finland over 23% of the customers used primarily free image banks, over 57% used sometimes and only 20% said that they are not using free image banks. So in that light Stock agencies are in a real pressure for offering something free to get more visitors to their pages.
-
OK, Juha, but please read all the thread. Yes agencies think about their interests, we think about us, to not loose the crumbs the agencies have left for us.
-
- Connected to the above, the free section has content from Wavebreak media (~14,200 images in WavebreakMediaMicro and wavebreak3), Rawpixel.com (over 10,000), Wirestock (~5,300), Gstudio (~4,000), Jeremy Bishop (~4,000), Good Studio (~3,000), Artinspiring (~4,000), Caia Image (~4,000), Jacob Lund (~7,000), Visual Generation (~4,000) Hero Images (~7,000), Morgan (111). This is all high quality content, largely indistinguishable from the paid content.
I'm interested that are those very known microstock contributors paid to be included in the free collection? Or do they get even paid something for free downloads? As in general I think it would be very hard to get that much content from them to be offered for free and make a promise for possible better sales in somewhere future.
I understand the free concept very well. It has over two years that we made a customer survey which resulted that in Finland over 23% of the customers used primarily free image banks, over 57% used sometimes and only 20% said that they are not using free image banks. So in that light Stock agencies are in a real pressure for offering something free to get more visitors to their pages.
Yes, all contributors with content in the Free collection have been paid for their participation.
-Mat
-
The free collection seems to be small. That's fine to me if it doesnt grow too much. Now please can you add a social media share button on images ? ::)
-
The free collection seems to be small. That's fine to me if it doesnt grow too much. Now please can you add a social media share button on images ? ::)
Thanks for the feedback. Your suggestion has been duly noted.
-Mat
-
Yes, all contributors with content in the Free collection have been paid for their participation.
-Mat
How much?
-
Mat, the best solution would be that Adobe should buy the rights to images in Free collection. This way, you would be distributing your own images and marketing your software with your own content.
-- edited due to typos --
-
Mat, the best solution would be that Adobe should buy the rights to images in Free collection. This way, you would be distributing your own images and marketing your software with your own content.
-- edited due to typos --
if the 1 yr cost is $X / image what would a buyout cost? it would also make it more costly to change the collection each year
-
A problem would be if a popular image is added to adobe free then, OK Adobe pays for is use. *BUT* given that image is now free to anyone, the chances are it'll never sell again on *any* agency so you lose all the income from it from everywhere.
-
Mat, the best solution would be that Adobe should buy the rights to images in Free collection. This way, you would be distributing your own images and marketing your software with your own content.
-- edited due to typos --
if the 1 yr cost is $X / image what would a buyout cost? it would also make it more costly to change the collection each year
This is something Mat should answer. Buyout is the only way to eliminate negative contributor related consequences, ones like gnirtS below describes.
-
This is something Mat should answer. Buyout is the only way to eliminate negative contributor related consequences, ones like gnirtS below describes.
Nothing can eliminate negative contributor related consequences related to a free collection. It more and more reinforces user beliefs that content is (or at least 'should be') free. Why would many users pay if they can get a file which 'satisfices' for free? Of course some won't be content to satisfice, but I'm sure many will.
For the providers of the free files, yes, it's better they got paid than they got nothing; but there is little positive in this scheme for suppliers.
-
Something else to consider is Shutterstock do similar - a free trial.
But reading TrustPilot and the buyer/stock creator Facebook groups and forums its very clear a very large percentage of new "customers" sign up for this trial with absolutely no intention of paying or becoming regular contributors. They openly admit they'll take whats needed with the trial and wont need to sign up with ongoing payment.
AS have to be very careful this is happening - if free images ARE available they need to be small in number and arguably, the ones less popular to at least provide an incentive to sign up. Giving away your best stuff for free is never going to encourage regular customers.
-
Something else to consider is Shutterstock do similar - a free trial.
Adobe has a free trial too.
(https://fixthephoto.com/blog/UserFiles/Image/222/adobe-stock-free-photos.jpg)
-
Something else to consider is Shutterstock do similar - a free trial.
Adobe has a free trial too.
Yes they do. And Getty too: Browse 6,491 free trial stock photos and images available...
Dreamstime free trial 15 images.
Netflix, Hulu, NBC, and pretty much every streaming TV channel have free trials. This isn't that unusual. Free trial memberships are common and a way to attract new members to a payment system.
Don't even start with Amazon Prime, free trial, that starts a subscription with, bait links and how that one traps people, over and over. >:(
-
Don't even start with Amazon Prime, free trial, that starts a subscription with, bait links and how that one traps people, over and over. >:(
Huh? Adobe Amazon Prime is the most user-friendly easy-to-unsubscripe free trial I have ever come across. You just have to check a checkbox and it will not be automatically prolonged. At least that's how it was 2 or 3 years ago.
-
Don't even start with Amazon Prime, free trial, that starts a subscription with, bait links and how that one traps people, over and over. >:(
Huh? Adobe Prime is the most user-friendly easy-to-unsubscripe free trial I have ever come across. You just have to check a checkbox and it will not be automatically prolonged. At least that's how it was 2 or 3 years ago.
Yes, I’ve found that part to be true, too. But I am a little disgusted with them...I have started watching a couple of shows, get thru one season, I’m hooked, then find out in order to watch more, you have to pay! I know why. Because they are, say, Showtime programs. So Prime gives you a “preview”, but they don’t make it clear upfront. Who knew you had to check thru episodes and seasons to see if that’s going to happen. I know now.
If I wanted to watch programs from Showtime, I’d subscribe. I pay for a Prime subscription. When I login to Prime, I expect all the programs to be available for free under my subscription.
Sounds like one or more of the stock sites are employing the same kind of “marketing.” I’m thinking of SS, where I read some say that after the free trial, they bill you even after you cancel.
-
Don't even start with Amazon Prime, free trial, that starts a subscription with, bait links and how that one traps people, over and over. >:(
Huh? Adobe Prime is the most user-friendly easy-to-unsubscripe free trial I have ever come across. You just have to check a checkbox and it will not be automatically prolonged. At least that's how it was 2 or 3 years ago.
Yes, I’ve found that part to be true, too. But I am a little disgusted with them...I have started watching a couple of shows, get thru one season, I’m hooked, then find out in order to watch more, you have to pay! I know why. Because they are, say, Showtime programs. So Prime gives you a “preview”, but they don’t make it clear upfront. Who knew you had to check thru episodes and seasons to see if that’s going to happen. I know now.
If I wanted to watch programs from Showtime, I’d subscribe. I pay for a Prime subscription. When I login to Prime, I expect all the programs to be available for free under my subscription.
Sounds like one or more of the stock sites are employing the same kind of “marketing.” I’m thinking of SS, where I read some say that after the free trial, they bill you even after you cancel.
Usually you just have to wait a bit longer - if they have one season of a series in their free prime collection, the newer ones will be added to the free collection at some point too, but it can take a while. I can live with that. I am just not very thrilled with how few shows are added to the free collection each month. The selection isn't that great. When I got prime it was super cheap (something like only 30€ each year?), so it was worth it, because even though you did not get all that much for it, it wasn't much money and there is also a small selection of free music and the free shipping (though, from my experience items that have free shipping for prime members usually cost a few € more than on other sites, so they just add the shipping costs to the item price....). But I think they have trippled the price by now, not sure I am going to keep it for another year, especially since their service has gone downhill.
But I think this is getting a bit off topic....
-
Don't even start with Amazon Prime, free trial, that starts a subscription with, bait links and how that one traps people, over and over. >:(
Huh? Adobe Prime is the most user-friendly easy-to-unsubscripe free trial I have ever come across. You just have to check a checkbox and it will not be automatically prolonged. At least that's how it was 2 or 3 years ago.
Adobe Prime? If you mean Amazon Prime, the problem is, they put all kinds of bait ads and popups, that mask the fact that by getting a free trial, or free shipping on this order, you just signed up for a years account. And my experience hasn't been as simple as click and it's gone. I had to contact Amazon, when the bill came through on my credit card and explain, I didn't want Prime. Valerie also had the same.
Anyway, the point is, SS is no different than all kinds of other businesses that offer a free trial month, when someone takes out a years subscription. Streaming services, Netflix and I could write a whole long list, because pretty much all of them, do that. The problem is, none that I know of, write and say "hey your free month is going to end and we're going to enforce a years contract starting in seven days" that's why people get upset and complain, because the responsibility for remembering and cancelling is on the person who signed up for the free month, that comes with the years subscription.
It's a standard practice.
And now in an attempt to drag this back towards the topic:
"Try the entire collection of 20+ creative desktop and mobile apps — including Photoshop, Illustrator, and Adobe XD — free for 7 days, or buy it now for just US$52.99/mo."
Adobe is trying to bring in new customers, who may not come to the site, without the offer of free downloads. And when they go look at the free images, they are likely to see this:
10 standard assets a month
First month free, then US$29.99/month
Cancel risk-free within the first month
Rollover up to 120 standard assets with renewal
Same as all the streaming, ShutterStock, Amazon, and probably everywhere else. Cancel risk-free within the first month
More buyers, means more money for us.
-
Usually you just have to wait a bit longer - if they have one season of a series in their free prime collection, the newer ones will be added to the free collection at some point too, but it can take a while. I can live with that.
Yes, I figured that might be the case. I can wait too. There’s more than enough programs to watch, between netflix, hulu, and prime. I’m still hooked into 21 seasons of Silent Witness from the BBC.
As far as the Adobe free topic, I don’t believe converting free customers into actual buyers works. But good luck to Adobe. I’m with Shelma1, I’d love free Adobe software, no strings attached like the free images are.
-
If you mean Amazon Prime, the problem is, they put all kinds of bait ads and popups, that mask the fact that by getting a free trial, or free shipping on this order, you just signed up for a years account. And my experience hasn't been as simple as click and it's gone. I had to contact Amazon, when the bill came through on my credit card and explain, I didn't want Prime. Valerie also had the same.
Maybe it's different where you live and only the German version is (or was) so trial-friendly then? Because I used that trial and after I signed up I could go to my account settings right away and just uncheck a "extend prime membership" (don't remember the exact wording) checkbox and that was it. Not a single cent was taken from my account. I was actually impressed with how easy it was, because with every other free trial I have ever seen, it was always made very difficult to get out of it, but this was really as simple as it could get. I don't know how it is now, maybe it was changed.
-
If you mean Amazon Prime, the problem is, they put all kinds of bait ads and popups, that mask the fact that by getting a free trial, or free shipping on this order, you just signed up for a years account. And my experience hasn't been as simple as click and it's gone. I had to contact Amazon, when the bill came through on my credit card and explain, I didn't want Prime. Valerie also had the same.
Maybe it's different where you live and only the German version is (or was) so trial-friendly then? Because I used that trial and after I signed up I could go to my account settings right away and just uncheck a "extend prime membership" (don't remember the exact woding) button and that was it. Not a single cent was taken from my account. I was actually impressed with how easy it was, because with every other free trial I hav ever seen, it was always made very difficult to get out of it, but this was really as simple as it could get. I don't know how it is now, maybe it was changed.
I had the same experience as you. I signed up a few years back, had it awhile, then cancelled. When I decided to subscribe again, I did so because it was so easy the first time around. I also had Hulu, and I’d never subscribe to them again. I paid more money per month to get rid of ads, but there were still ads. I promptly unsubscribed.
-
it wasnt free, you had to upload 300 new images and have them approved, adobe made money on the back of that, and creating 300 images is a hell of a lot of work
you seem to have trouble with the meaning of simple words like 'free' and 'limit' etc
first, please stop the ad hominem attacks on Matt you made earlier
you seem to have trouble with simple words too!! - there was NO CHARGE for the bonus -- there was an incentive for uploads and a reward was given. commonly done for all sorts of transactions -'buy 2 get one free', 'earn 1000 pts for a reward',etc
you have a problem with reading, i never said there was a charge, I said the bonus wasnt free, which it wasnt
admin edit: removed offensive language
-
The free collection seems to be small. That's fine to me if it doesnt grow too much. Now please can you add a social media share button on images ? ::)
Thanks for the feedback. Your suggestion has been duly noted.
-Mat
hi matt,i see that the long sighted idea of the free collection from adobe to attract new buyers has already some followers...pond5...and other agencies will follow...it doesn't take a market genius to understand that to take advantage on other agencies needs ideas not just offer content for free...sorry for the outburst,don't take it personal...
-
Yes, all contributors with content in the Free collection have been paid for their participation.
-Mat
How much?
1 million Exposure credits ;D
-
I saw this asked on FB. The free images will be expiring soon. Will there be more rounds of additions and payments?
-
I saw this asked on FB. The free images will be expiring soon. Will there be more rounds of additions and payments?
I should be able to provide an update on this soon. Thanks for the question.
-Mat
-
My earnings definitely increased after free collection, not decreased as some predicted.
-
My earnings definitely increased after free collection, not decreased as some predicted.
my monthly sales remained stable, so a definite net increase
-
Hi Everyone, Heads up! I find it hard to believe that it's been almost a year since the nomination process began for the Adobe Stock Free collection. Starting tomorrow, June 7 some of you will have the opportunity to re-nominate photos that are currently in the Free collection, or to nominate new photos for consideration. The window to nominate your photos will be open until June 22. If you do want to nominate photos for consideration, I recommend you sign into the contributor portal tomorrow to take care of this. As before, we will be paying 5 credits for each photo approved for the Free Collection after the nomination window is closed. Photos that are approved will be in the Free collection for 1 year with a non-exclusive commitment.
There was a slight deviation to the agreement that you will see tomorrow. In 2023, when the nomination process starts up again, Adobe will have the right to nominate the assets that are already in the Free collection for 2022 for consideration in 2023. This process will repeat each year. You will, of course have the option to opt them out if you prefer. Tomorrow, once the nomination process begins, I will share links to the updated FAQ and 2022 addendum here to review for more detailed information.
Thank you!
Mat Hayward
-
... and over this past year you've mistreated your contributors like never before..
yet you ask them to submit their work for free?
How ? Where is that thing called humanity you used to have?
-
... and over this past year you've mistreated your contributors like never before..
yet you ask them to submit their work for free?
How ? Where is that thing called humanity you used to have?
I'm sorry you feel that way @Chillswell. To clarify, we are not asking you to give us your content for free. Adobe Stock pays 5 credits per approved image for the right to include the image in the Free collection for a year on a non-exclusive basis. You are not obligated to participate. If it's not for you, no action is required. Simply do not nominate your eligible photos.
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
-
Thanks for the announcement Mat - good to know what's coming up and I think it's good that you have a choice whether to attend or not.
-
Thanks for info Mat and repeated fair and transparent treatment. It's pleasure to work with Adobe
-
Thanks Mat.
-
... and over this past year you've mistreated your contributors like never before..
yet you ask them to submit their work for free?
How ? Where is that thing called humanity you used to have?
I've felt no mistreatment from them over the last year. Quite the opposite. The Free Collection helped move my other work. Been a great year!
-
hello everyone,
Mat is a friend who works devotedly in adobe stock, trying to solve the questions I ask and the problems I encounter.
thank you again to him.
I also did not see any disrespect from him.
And again, yes, my sales increased.
@MatHayward
There are no changes on the Adobestock page. Will it open in a certain time zone?
-
I'm sorry you feel that way @Chillswell
Well, you've clearly singled me out here haven't you?
have you read the forums? its not just me who feels this way.
We got quite a few big players here protesting the change in Adobe over the past year,
But, it wouldn't be polite of me to name them, you know who they are.
Anyways, plenty of others here to tell you how amazing you and adobe are,
while they sell their 4k footage for $1.50 instead of $50 or $70 .
The reviews on glassdoor regarding adobe don't lie though,
So good luck to you and your "army" of flatterers here.
-
Adobe Stock is the only agency (by far) that has renewed my hope for selling photos, based on my experience for at least the past month.
-
Starting tomorrow, June 7 some of you will have the opportunity to re-nominate photos that are currently in the Free collection, or to nominate new photos for consideration. The window to nominate your photos will be open until June 22.
Hi Mat, thanks for the heads up.
What defines "some of you"?
Because when I look in the contributor portal I see no changes so I will not have the opportunity then, I guess.
-
Starting tomorrow, June 7 some of you will have the opportunity to re-nominate photos that are currently in the Free collection, or to nominate new photos for consideration. The window to nominate your photos will be open until June 22.
Hi Mat, thanks for the heads up.
What defines "some of you"?
Because when I look in the contributor portal I see no changes so I will not have the opportunity then, I guess.
I have the same questin as you :)
-
I'm sorry you feel that way @Chillswell
Well, you've clearly singled me out here haven't you?
have you read the forums? its not just me who feels this way.
You’re “singled out” because he was directly responding to your comment which was directed towards his post. You know that though.
-
I'm sorry you feel that way @Chillswell
Well, you've clearly singled me out here haven't you?
have you read the forums? its not just me who feels this way.
We got quite a few big players here protesting the change in Adobe over the past year,
But, it wouldn't be polite of me to name them, you know who they are.
Anyways, plenty of others here to tell you how amazing you and adobe are,
while they sell their 4k footage for $1.50 instead of $50 or $70 .
The reviews on glassdoor regarding adobe don't lie though,
So good luck to you and your "army" of flatterers here.
Well said. +++
-
Hello Mat,
I appreciate your efforts and I think you're a nice person.
But I think Chillswell in his message was rather referring to the new commission rate for videos.
Yes we are not forced to submit our work into the free collection, but we are forced, and have no other choice than to accept that our videos are now sold with a price commission divided by 10...
Unless Adobe Stock allows us to opt out from this plan (which would not be very complex to set up), it is nothing but pure robbery.
Regards
Benoit
-
Starting tomorrow, June 7 some of you will have the opportunity to re-nominate photos that are currently in the Free collection, or to nominate new photos for consideration. The window to nominate your photos will be open until June 22.
Hi Mat, thanks for the heads up.
What defines "some of you"?
Because when I look in the contributor portal I see no changes so I will not have the opportunity then, I guess.
I have the same questin as you :)
Same question :D On my contributor portal I did not see anything for free collection opportunity :( Do we get opportunity or this year is for "special" contributor only?
-
My earnings definitely increased after free collection, not decreased as some predicted.
Or maybe that's in spite of the free collection? ;D
My sales are up this year, I was happy with the images that I submitted, that were not best selling, and made me extra money. I can only see how the photo section has improved, year after year.
As for the other... I don't do video, or at least nothing that I expect any income. Too expensive to create and the whole market, as far as Microstock goes, has dropped. This is the same as things were when photos were over produced, and Vectors made better returns. Then the illustrations and vectors, production surpassed the needs of the market.
Now the same has happened to video content. Market pressure, supply and demand, it's not something that some agency can defy or ignore, just because I want better pay. My needs and desires are not the responsibility of the agencies, or how they run their business.
-
Hi All,
My post yesterday was a heads up that the nomination process would be live today...which it now is. I started a new thread so people just joining, won't need to scroll through 14 pages. Please let me know in that thread if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Mat
-
Great. Thanks Mat ;)
-
Hi All,
My post yesterday was a heads up that the nomination process would be live today...which it now is. I started a new thread so people just joining, won't need to scroll through 14 pages. Please let me know in that thread if you have any questions.
Thanks!
Mat
Yes, it popped up just now. Where I live, the 7th of June started many hours ago :)
-
All the ones that are currently free don't have a slider. Just a box that says "free". Doesn't seem like a choice for those. Or are those automatically not going to be re-admitted at all?
-
All the ones that are currently free don't have a slider. Just a box that says "free". Doesn't seem like a choice for those. Or are those automatically not going to be re-admitted at all?
Try refreshing the page or using a different browser Sean. That was the case immediately after this launched today, but was corrected almost immediately. If you're still seeing that, it's likely a browser issue.
Please reach out directly if the problem persists.
Thank you,
Mat Hayward
-
All the ones that are currently free don't have a slider. Just a box that says "free". Doesn't seem like a choice for those. Or are those automatically not going to be re-admitted at all?
They fixed the bug, had the same issue. You should be able to see it now or maybe it's a regional thing and it will take a bit longer.
-
Hello Mat,
I appreciate your efforts and I think you're a nice person.
But I think Chillswell in his message was rather referring to the new commission rate for videos.
Yes we are not forced to submit our work into the free collection, but we are forced, and have no other choice than to accept that our videos are now sold with a price commission divided by 10...
Unless Adobe Stock allows us to opt out from this plan (which would not be very complex to set up), it is nothing but pure robbery.
Regards
Benoit
Thank you for the support, guess we both don't like licking boots so much.
Easier to just ignore us. Force us to sell our work for $0.50 cents and be "generous"
to have it listed for free, optionally . >:(
-
Hello Mat,
I appreciate your efforts and I think you're a nice person.
But I think Chillswell in his message was rather referring to the new commission rate for videos.
Yes we are not forced to submit our work into the free collection, but we are forced, and have no other choice than to accept that our videos are now sold with a price commission divided by 10...
Unless Adobe Stock allows us to opt out from this plan (which would not be very complex to set up), it is nothing but pure robbery.
Regards
Benoit
Thank you for the support, guess we both don't like licking boots so much.
Easier to just ignore us. Force us to sell our work for $0.50 cents and be "generous"
to have it listed for free, optionally . >:(
Yes, and it feels like we are both the elephant in the room in this thread...
-
Hello Mat,
I appreciate your efforts and I think you're a nice person.
But I think Chillswell in his message was rather referring to the new commission rate for videos.
Yes we are not forced to submit our work into the free collection, but we are forced, and have no other choice than to accept that our videos are now sold with a price commission divided by 10...
Unless Adobe Stock allows us to opt out from this plan (which would not be very complex to set up), it is nothing but pure robbery.
Regards
Benoit
Thank you for the support, guess we both don't like licking boots so much.
Easier to just ignore us. Force us to sell our work for $0.50 cents and be "generous"
to have it listed for free, optionally . >:(
Nobody is forcing you anything, and it's not free, you get 5$.
-
Hello Mat,
I appreciate your efforts and I think you're a nice person.
But I think Chillswell in his message was rather referring to the new commission rate for videos.
Yes we are not forced to submit our work into the free collection, but we are forced, and have no other choice than to accept that our videos are now sold with a price commission divided by 10...
Unless Adobe Stock allows us to opt out from this plan (which would not be very complex to set up), it is nothing but pure robbery.
Regards
Benoit
Thank you for the support, guess we both don't like licking boots so much.
Easier to just ignore us. Force us to sell our work for $0.50 cents and be "generous"
to have it listed for free, optionally . >:(
Nobody is forcing you anything, and it's not free, you get 5$.
You are right but they are also.
Everybody here hates shutterstock so much that they see Adobe as their savior an kiss up to them not realising that Adobe is in the same game and will act accordingly, as like all the others. As for example they did with videos just recently.
For myself, but I am a newby and don't have a big portfolio, I notice that shutterstock sells more different photos then the variety I sell on Adobe. And yes it's just ten cents most of the time but sometimes there will be bigger amounts that will surpass Adobe's commissions by a mile and make up for it. Same goes for Istock. More variety and way bigger sales now and then.
Mat is a nice guy but is being paid to be here and convey the message of Adobe. Some people however think he's doing it from his good heart. Which he probably has, but that's irrelevant because it's not the case here.
-
Nobody is kissing them anywhere. All I can say is, that in the last 6 or so months, Adobe became my best earner (about 20% increase from last year, 35% increase compared to 2020) while in the same time, number of sales on SS plummeted for about 30% and earningS for about 50% in the same period. Even istock is doing better this year than SS. And I don't mind getting 5€ extra cash for a files that don't sell anyway.
-
Nobody is kissing them anywhere.
Oh come on, it's full of comments over here that kiss up to Adobe. And that's fine but don't say that it's not there.
-
Nobody is forcing you anything, and it's not free, you get 5$.
Well, up until a few months ago, every video sold made me at least $28
Since they've introduced the video subscription service, they've sold the exact videos
But instead of getting $28, my profit became $3.
If this would've been the case from the get go,
I wouldn't have bothered uploading videos,
But it wasn't, they forced that change years after these videos were uploaded.
This wasn't part of the initial agreement, and ,
they didn't ask , if we're ok with it, so in my dictionary, that's forcing.
This is the part where you say "If you don't like it leave"
So yes, thats exactly what happened. I left.
-
Hello Mat,
I appreciate your efforts and I think you're a nice person.
But I think Chillswell in his message was rather referring to the new commission rate for videos.
Yes we are not forced to submit our work into the free collection, but we are forced, and have no other choice than to accept that our videos are now sold with a price commission divided by 10...
Unless Adobe Stock allows us to opt out from this plan (which would not be very complex to set up), it is nothing but pure robbery.
Regards
Benoit
Thank you for the support, guess we both don't like licking boots so much.
Easier to just ignore us. Force us to sell our work for $0.50 cents and be "generous"
to have it listed for free, optionally . >:(
Nobody is forcing you anything, and it's not free, you get 5$.
You are right but they are also.
Everybody here hates shutterstock so much that they see Adobe as their savior an kiss up to them not realising that Adobe is in the same game and will act accordingly, as like all the others. As for example they did with videos just recently.
For myself, but I am a newby and don't have a big portfolio, I notice that shutterstock sells more different photos then the variety I sell on Adobe. And yes it's just ten cents most of the time but sometimes there will be bigger amounts that will surpass Adobe's commissions by a mile and make up for it. Same goes for Istock. More variety and way bigger sales now and then.
Mat is a nice guy but is being paid to be here and convey the message of Adobe. Some people however think he's doing it from his good heart. Which he probably has, but that's irrelevant because it's not the case here.
Adobe Stock has overtaken Shutterstock for me too.
I don't sell video but I can see why Chillswell is upset, that's a big drop. Hoprfully Adobe Stock won't become greedy like Shutterstock.
-
Hi Everyone,
Moments ago we launched a free collection on Adobe Stock. We'll be sending an email to contributors later today with this announcement but I wanted to give you a heads up in advance.
I expect you will have some (many?) questions and I'm happy to answer any that I can. We have put together a Learn & Support page with details and an anticipated list of FAQ for you here:
https://helpx.adobe.com/stock/contributor/help/free-collection-contributor-information.html
You can view the collection here: https://stock.adobe.com/free
Let me know your questions, I'll be around all day.
Kind regards,
Mat Hayward
Okay, so let's ask some questions:
why can't we have statistics about the files involved in this operation, during and after this operation?
Assuming you're not going to give us these numbers in the end anyway (and that's not a good thing), will their value still be calculated in the rankings?
Do they exist, these rankings?
One of the things that amazon does, for example, is look at the data of products that OTHERS sell in their marketplace, and then they themselves at a lower price produce a competitive product precisely with those who trust them as distributors, not competitors.
We these sales data (from which we will only benefit with a flat rate) cannot even have them, if we stick to the comparison. It would be very useful for us to have this data.
Second question:
in what "many ways" (apart from any initial flat rate remuneration) should contributors benefit from this operation? Could you list them explicitly? :)
Thank you very much for your effort and commitment.
-
Mat will correct me where I am wrong, but here are the answers to your questions:
why can't we have statistics about the files involved in this operation, during and after this operation?
Because the system in the back end does not capture them. Could it be implemented? Absolutely. But it probably considered not worth, or low priority.
Assuming you're not going to give us these numbers in the end anyway (and that's not a good thing), will their value still be calculated in the rankings?
If free downloads are not captured, there can not have impact to the rankings
Do they exist, these rankings?
Absolutely, and it is likely the heaviest weight in search algorithm. I am also guessing time plays significant factor, i.e recent downloads versus old ones, etc. But you will not ever get specifics of algorithm implementation itself, as it is company proprietary (as it should be)
It would be very useful for us to have this data.
Agreed 100%. But again it is likely not going to happen
Second question:
in what "many ways" (apart from any initial flat rate remuneration) should contributors benefit from this operation? Could you list them explicitly? :)
Main one is probably portfolio exposure. I.e. if customer downloads free image & likes it, there is link to contributor portfolio so he/she might go there and get something else, bookmark it etc etc.
-
Because the system in the back end does not capture them. Could it be implemented? Absolutely. But it probably considered not worth, or low priority.
I find it very hard to believe that the system will not capture downloads in the free section. That would also be pretty dumb from Adobe because they could not tell how succesful it is or not. If somebody told you this then it's probably more a lame excuse not to give us these statitistics. But I'm pretty sure Adobe has them.
-
Because the system in the back end does not capture them. Could it be implemented? Absolutely. But it probably considered not worth, or low priority.
I find it very hard to believe that the system will not capture downloads in the free section. That would also be pretty dumb from Adobe because they could not tell how succesful it is or not. If somebody told you this then it's probably more a lame excuse not to give us these statitistics. But I'm pretty sure Adobe has them.
I don't think they do, at least not directly linked to individual image/contributor port. If this was real not cyber world, I'd wager you a beer 🍺. But we might not find out, it might be too internal.
One thing for sure, it would be very useful to have this data public
-
Nobody is forcing you anything, and it's not free, you get 5$.
[/quote]
Wrong.
If I'm hired for a job at 1000$/month, and suddenly it drops to 100$/month, am I forced to leave ? I think so.
In this case I am earning 2,80$ instead of 28$, and 5,60$ instead of 56$. Take some time and do your math.
And if your message was just another "take it or leave it", just give me a break.
-
...
Let me know your questions, I'll be around all day.
...
Mat Hayward
About automatic renewal:
for the works involved in the automatic renewal, will there also be a new automatic payment in the same terms as the first one? otherwise they should automatically go out of the period.
Too convenient and not very honest to leave it to OUR difficulty, attention and use of time and resources to EXIT a condition that benefits Adobe at our expense.
If, on the other hand, the payment (but I don't see any mention of it in the addendum) for automatic renewal is itself automatic, then fine: can you clarify that explicitly -- and officially -- for us?
And if you can, please let know Adobe whenever they treat contributors as if they were employees they also have to remember the part about the salary.
Thank you! YOU are very kind and helping.
-
Mat will correct me where I am wrong, but here are the answers to your questions:
are you and adobe employee or do you have official sources with documents citing data to give these answers? I think this space should be leaved free for Mat only about answers, and for us to only ask questions, leaving private messages the privileged way for us to discuss, in this specific thread.
-
... cut ...
Having content in the paid collection of a similar nature to what is in the free collection can only benefit you as opposed to not having it online at all. I do expect to see expanded searches from people driven to the site by the free collection so if your content is displayed in those searches, you have the potential for sales you would have never seen otherwise.
fact of which we have no possibility of having any knowledge, have we?
-
Nobody is forcing you anything, and it's not free, you get 5$.
Wrong.
If I'm hired for a job at 1000$/month, and suddenly it drops to 100$/month, am I forced to leave ? I think so.
In this case I am earning 2,80$ instead of 28$, and 5,60$ instead of 56$. Take some time and do your math.
And if your message was just another "take it or leave it", just give me a break.
[/quote]
This is not force. It's your decision.
And I don't know why yall complaining, stock is going downhill in the last few years, we all know it, and theres no crap, you can do about it. Whinig here wont change anything, just suck it up and move on.
-
...
Let me know your questions, I'll be around all day.
...
Mat Hayward
About automatic renewal:
for the works involved in the automatic renewal, will there also be a new automatic payment in the same terms as the first one? otherwise they should automatically go out of the period.
Too convenient and not very honest to leave it to OUR difficulty, attention and use of time and resources to EXIT a condition that benefits Adobe at our expense.
If, on the other hand, the payment (but I don't see any mention of it in the addendum) for automatic renewal is itself automatic, then fine: can you clarify that explicitly -- and officially -- for us?
And if you can, please let know Adobe whenever they treat contributors as if they were employees they also have to remember the part about the salary.
Thank you! YOU are very kind and helping.
I'm unable to answer the other questions you have posed, however this one I can answer definitively. Yes.
If your file is approved for the Free collection during this 2022 wave, it will be automatically "nominated" for the Free collection in 2023. You will, of course have the option to opt-out and decline the nomination if that is your preference. What will be different is that the default will be for the file to remain nominated. Just like this year and last, if the nominated file is approved for the Free collection in 2023, the payment will be applied to your account automatically. It is important to us that contributors are fairly compensated for their work. In my opinion, as a contributor, I feel that $5 per image for a non-exclusive, 12 month agreement is fair and reasonable, so I have personally opted in the majority of my eligible files. The eligible files in my account were not generating consistent income for me and I don't see why that trend would have changed. If it's not for you, I fully respect your position and you are in no way, shape, or form obligated to participate.
Whether you nominate your photos or not, all contributors are greatly appreciated at Adobe Stock. We know that without you, there is no us.
Thanks for the questions and feedback,
Mat Hayward
-
...
...
In my opinion, as a contributor, I feel that $5 per image for a non-exclusive, 12 month agreement is fair and reasonable, so I have personally opted in the majority of my eligible files. The eligible files in my account were not generating consistent income for me and I don't see why that trend would have changed.
....
I totally agree. And I apologize that my knowledge of the English language and use of translators may have made what I posed as a hypothesis more aggressive than determined and clear: an "if so, then so, otherwise something else" form.
But you have made it perfectly clear that it is all fair.
So I renew my apologies for the aggressive over-form: you do not deserve it, nor does the initiative.
Thank you for your help.
-
Let me tell you. if i get a few more 2 dollar video sales i will take my +10000 clips away
Regards
-
And I don't know why yall complaining, stock is going downhill in the last few years, we all know it, and theres no crap, you can do about it. Whinig here wont change anything, just suck it up and move on.
We're complaining because prices are going up yet our income is being cut down,
The "just suck it up" part, we will leave to you. If you're into bootlicking and suckingthingsup, go ahead.
The "and move on" part -> sure, some of us already have, and some of us will.
Your portfolio will remain among your "kind" .
Which means, among those who are willing to sell themselves cheap.
Usually these type of marketplaces don't last long.
So clearly, there is something we can do about it,
Those who have more self respect towards their own work will find alternatives,
There's a reason the quality of Netflix content is crashing throughout the years,
There's a reason why Seinfeld, Friends, The Office, Mad Men, and many more aren't on it anymore.
same goes for Shutterstock and Adobe and Pond5 .
Some prefer to be buried with their dignity, some don't.
This message isn't actually intended for you, even though you might think it is,
It is to reinforce the others who feel like me, an echo chamber perhaps,
To keep our heads up and not give in to this.
-
Dear people, what about photos eligible for free collection submitted to adobe via wirestock? How is wirestock going to handle it?
-
Let me tell you. if i get a few more 2 dollar video sales i will take my +10000 clips away
Regards
You ARE going to get MORE than a few more crummy sales.
-
Dear people, what about photos eligible for free collection submitted to adobe via wirestock? How is wirestock going to handle it?
I suspect they will do nothing, because that's not their right to decide.
-
Dear people, what about photos eligible for free collection submitted to adobe via wirestock? How is wirestock going to handle it?
Well actually you are making a good point. Will they cash in on their eligible photos? Will they pay the contributors their share? Or will they do nothing? Interesting.
Seems a perfect opportunity for them to hit and run. It's not that things were going that swell lately. And now there is this big pile of money lurking :)
-
.....
So clearly, there is something we can do about it,
Those who have more self respect towards their own work will find alternatives,...
"aye,there's the rub"
at this point there's no alternative for most artists that matches the (meager) income from microstock
-
.....
So clearly, there is something we can do about it,
Those who have more self respect towards their own work will find alternatives,...
"aye,there's the rub"
at this point there's no alternative for most artists that matches the (meager) income from microstock
I wrote those who have more self respect towards their own work, not most artists.
It was always about quality over quantity, most artists are the masses.
This wasn't aimed at them,
especially the negative ones who are here to cry "there's no alternative" :D ;D
Shopify ? Sellfy ? Stripe ? Gumroad ? Paddle ?
If you're good enough, your clients will find you.
Those who are, know they are.
-
I wrote those who have more self respect towards their own work, not most artists.
It was always about quality over quantity, most artists are the masses.
This wasn't aimed at them,
especially the negative ones who are here to cry "there's no alternative" :D ;D
Shopify ? Sellfy ? Stripe ? Gumroad ? Paddle ?
If you're good enough, your clients will find you.
Those who are, know they are.
For what its worth, whether someone is Picasso or a duck that can paint, if they sell on Microstock agencies, there is absolutely no difference between the two except sales. Some can adjust to changing times, some can't. Still money on the table to be made, and if someone is looking for other things, then this might not be the right fit for them.
-
.....
So clearly, there is something we can do about it,
Those who have more self respect towards their own work will find alternatives,...
"aye,there's the rub"
at this point there's no alternative for most artists that matches the (meager) income from microstock
I wrote those who have more self respect towards their own work, not most artists.
It was always about quality over quantity, most artists are the masses.
This wasn't aimed at them,
especially the negative ones who are here to cry "there's no alternative" :D ;D
Shopify ? Sellfy ? Stripe ? Gumroad ? Paddle ?
If you're good enough, your clients will find you.
Those who are, know they are.
I tend to agree with your comments re. the alternatives. I closed my Etsy shop because I was having a bad month with difficult buyers, and needed a 'sanity break'. I reopened it a little over a week ago and already had 11 sales. Including sales from some of my previous 'good' buyers/followers who were waiting for me to return, and immediately bought more items.
Direct selling has its good and bad points, but with some effort and time, and perhaps the occasional sanity-break, one definitely can build up a new income stream.
More info here:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/where-to-now/msg576986/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/where-to-now/msg576986/?topicseen#new)
-
I tend to agree with your comments re. the alternatives. I closed my Etsy shop because I was having a bad month with difficult buyers, and needed a 'sanity break'. I reopened it a little over a week ago and already had 11 sales. Including sales from some of my previous 'good' buyers/followers who were waiting for me to return, and immediately bought more items.
Direct selling has its good and bad points, but with some effort and time, and perhaps the occasional sanity-break, one definitely can build up a new income stream.
More info here:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/where-to-now/msg576986/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/where-to-now/msg576986/?topicseen#new)
I love playing with my websites for direct selling of various things. So many ways to do this stuff for sure.
-
I tend to agree with your comments re. the alternatives. I closed my Etsy shop because I was having a bad month with difficult buyers, and needed a 'sanity break'. I reopened it a little over a week ago and already had 11 sales. Including sales from some of my previous 'good' buyers/followers who were waiting for me to return, and immediately bought more items.
Direct selling has its good and bad points, but with some effort and time, and perhaps the occasional sanity-break, one definitely can build up a new income stream.
More info here:
https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/where-to-now/msg576986/?topicseen#new (https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/where-to-now/msg576986/?topicseen#new)
I love playing with my websites for direct selling of various things. So many ways to do this stuff for sure.
yes, running your own shop can be a lot of fun and very interesting experience - and profitable. I just wish there was a way to offload the 'crazy' buyers who cause problems. Its a bit like 'Fawlty Towers" - 'this would be a great hotel to run if it wasn't for the guests'. lol
-
Yes, been enjoying Payhip and Gumroad , and had a strange influx in traffic and sales, recently ,
(Maybe deleting Adobe/SS portfolios made clients "google me")
But since Gumroad only do Paypal for some countries, they annoy me.
Payhip is great, and Paddle.com seems worth looking into
These stock agencies are merely the middle men,
Made of cubicle office slaves, who work boring 9-5 jobs,
Travel once a year on a 2 week holiday and enjoy their "401k"s ;D ;D ;D
They don't have that rebel spirit in them, which is why they're there.
They can't produce what we do (if they could, they would've a long time ago).
Yet they tend to forget that.
Perhaps these attempts at cutting fees down and a mass exodus
of quality photographers / videographers will remind them?
One thing is certain, if they were doing that well,
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Yes Adobe Stock, Shutterstock and Envato -> Everyone can see you.
-
...
-
They can't produce what we do (if they could, they would've a long time ago).
Actually, Mat is working for Adobe, and he is also producing what we do. 😋
-
Actually, Mat is working for Adobe, and he is also producing what we do. 😋
Your alias speak volumes.
-
Actually, Mat is working for Adobe, and he is also producing what we do. 😋
Your alias speaks volumes.
Exactly! 🤣
-
Adobe Stock is such a great middle man,
Everyone should be proud working for them. 🤯🤡
especially now, that you know what your "free" images are used for.
(https://i.ibb.co/M6rFq0r/Untitled-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QdLyswL)
-
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
-
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
Plus the CC subscription reviews have nothing to do with US and our side of AdobeStock or the free collection and mirror what happens to many other places, when people sign up for trials and get billed for not ending them. Or when someone adds an annual contract and forgets to cancel.
Although there should be advanced notice that it's going to renew, I think that's the law now.
So lets rephrase the complaints on Trustpilot (which if you pay them, will edit and remove negative reviews by the way. Like blackmail) "I forgot to cancel my subscription to CC and even though I got a notice that it was going to auto-renew, I ignored that, until I got billed. Now I'm angry at Adobe because of my own inaction."
I don't like the excessive fee to cancel part, that seems a bit unreasonable. (if it's true?) Especially if someone wrote a day or two after the billing discovery. Billing for the time used, at the monthly rate, would be a fair solution.
-
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
These aren't the bought ones, those ones are real.
Should give you a real insight about Adobe's recent changes,
From the clients point of view, not the contributors'.
Just wait 3 - 6 months and then you'll see the ones they paid for .
It's called "dripping" since Trustpilot's algorithm detects,
If there are a lot of positive or negative all at once.
However, real ones are easy to spot since the actual review is specific,
and detailed.
If you want to see what paid ones look like,
check out Envato's recent positive ones on Trustpilot
( who were recently ranked at 2.6, yesterday 3.7 and today they're at 3.8 😂😂😂 🤡🤡🤡 )
Once again, you guys want to live in denial, so be it.
Keep licking boots and carry on.
-
Plus the CC subscription reviews have nothing to do with US and our side of AdobeStock or the free collection and mirror what happens to many other places, when people sign up for trials and get billed for not ending them. Or when someone adds an annual contract and forgets to cancel.
Although there should be advanced notice that it's going to renew, I think that's the law now.
So lets rephrase the complaints on Trustpilot (which if you pay them, will edit and remove negative reviews by the way. Like blackmail) "I forgot to cancel my subscription to CC and even though I got a notice that it was going to auto-renew, I ignored that, until I got billed. Now I'm angry at Adobe because of my own inaction."
I don't like the excessive fee to cancel part, that seems a bit unreasonable. (if it's true?) Especially if someone wrote a day or two after the billing discovery. Billing for the time used, at the monthly rate, would be a fair solution.
Whenever I need a stock photo for one of my projects, generally I use Dreamstime, since I can use credits from my own sales. Love that. Fotolia used to allow that too, not sure if Adobe does anymore, I no longer have an account there.
-
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
These aren't the bought ones, you just wait 3 - 6 months and then you'll see the ones they paid for .
If you want to see the bought ones, check out Envato on Trustpilot ( who were only recently at 2.6)
Once again, you guys want to live in denial that you're working for the bad guys, so be it.
Keep licking boots and carry on.
No thanks, I dont see a point in following companies I don't subscribe to. You seem very upset at them, when its an industry-wide issue ("free" sections). Its just business. It was good, now its not.
Love the keyboard warriors who call everyone else out anonymously. Lets see the portfolio that is so much "more" than all us peons...
-
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
These aren't the bought ones, you just wait 3 - 6 months and then you'll see the ones they paid for .
If you want to see the bought ones, check out Envato on Trustpilot ( who were only recently at 2.6)
Once again, you guys want to live in denial that you're working for the bad guys, so be it.
Keep licking boots and carry on.
No thanks, I dont see a point in following companies I don't subscribe to. You seem very upset at them, when its an industry-wide issue ("free" sections). Its just business. It was good, now its not.
Love the keyboard warriors who call everyone else out anonymously. Lets see the portfolio that is so much "more" than all us peons...
So basically you don't care you sell through an agency that scams it's clients,
and I'm the keyboard warrior . ok. you're right.
-
So basically you don't care you sell through an agency that scams it's clients,
and I'm the keyboard warrior . ok. you're right.
Lol, deny and deflect, as usual. So that's a no on the portfolio hey? I figured.
Regarding your first line, that's a big assumption on your part. I do hope you put more thought into your work than your debating skills.
-
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
These aren't the bought ones, you just wait 3 - 6 months and then you'll see the ones they paid for .
If you want to see the bought ones, check out Envato on Trustpilot ( who were only recently at 2.6)
Once again, you guys want to live in denial that you're working for the bad guys, so be it.
Keep licking boots and carry on.
No thanks, I dont see a point in following companies I don't subscribe to. You seem very upset at them, when its an industry-wide issue ("free" sections). Its just business. It was good, now its not.
Love the keyboard warriors who call everyone else out anonymously. Lets see the portfolio that is so much "more" than all us peons...
So basically you don't care you sell through an agency that scams it's clients,
and I'm the keyboard warrior . ok. you're right.
Did you even read the reviews? They are all from people who did not cancel their subscription in time. That's not a scam, but laziness on the customer's end. Read contracts before you sign them! Just because it's online and you click a button it doesn't mean it isn't a binding contract.
You can find the exact same reviews on Truspilot for every stock photo agency that offers yearly subscriptions. Shutterstock has them, iStock has them, Adobe has them, Dremastime has them.
People sign up and don't realize the cheapes prices are for a yearly subscription and if you want out after a month you need to pay for a different subscription that costs you more for photos. Or people sign up for the free trial, without reading that you actually have to cancel it. Signing contracts without reading them and then giving the company a bad review for your error, that's just stupidity.
There is a reason you can't just back out of yearly subscriptions: You already paid the cheapes price possible for images you downloaded and that price only comes with the condition that you pay for a minimum of 12 months. That's the condition you agreed to and you can't expect to pay the same cheap price, without fulfilling that condition.
If you only want a few images, you have to pay much more per image as part of an on demand package. Allowing people to cancel yearly subscription before 12 months would mean giving away images that should be sold for on demand package prices for the lowers subscription package prices. The only ones being scamed like this would be the agencies (not the artists by the way. We don't earn a dime from subscription plans customers's don't want/need and use anymore, so we basically get screwed over either way.)
-
So basically you don't care you sell through an agency that scams it's clients,
and I'm the keyboard warrior . ok. you're right.
Lol, deny and deflect, as usual. So that's a no on the portfolio hey? I figured.
Regarding your first line, that's a big assumption on your part. I do hope you put more thought into your work than your debating skills.
How did you know I came here to get feedback regarding debating and my portfolio,
from some loser I never met nor give a flying *** about? (who also hides his portfolio, by the way)
* you're a psychic.
No dude, you're wasting both of our times, and clearly yours isn't valuable.
I'm here to expose the scammy subscription plan adobe enforced on both
Customers and contributors,
(They didn't ask videographers if they are CONSENTING to having their items given for $2.80 instead of $28)
Additionally, to expose the low-key pedo vibes coming out of Stocksy, (luckily they removed the little boy with the drag outfit from their front page since, but still feature some perverted photos of little boys)
https://www.stocksy.com/3000590/young-boy-having-make-up-applied-by-a-make-up-artist (https://www.stocksy.com/3000590/young-boy-having-make-up-applied-by-a-make-up-artist)
https://www.stocksy.com/2782918/boy-dressed-in-velvet-and-heels-chats-to-his-sister (https://www.stocksy.com/2782918/boy-dressed-in-velvet-and-heels-chats-to-his-sister)
https://www.stocksy.com/3200102/gender-play (https://www.stocksy.com/3200102/gender-play)
(Gender play?? this is hardly a 10 year old boy what!!!)
and also the paid reviews Envato has on Trustpilot.
However,
If there's ever a need for someone to tell me how amazing my work is or how good my debating skills are,
I know where to find you :-* :-* :-*
Good night sweetheart.
-
they wouldn't have the need to buy fake Trustpilot reviews ;D
Why on earth would they buy reviews like that?
lol...
These aren't the bought ones, you just wait 3 - 6 months and then you'll see the ones they paid for .
If you want to see the bought ones, check out Envato on Trustpilot ( who were only recently at 2.6)
Once again, you guys want to live in denial that you're working for the bad guys, so be it.
Keep licking boots and carry on.
No thanks, I dont see a point in following companies I don't subscribe to. You seem very upset at them, when its an industry-wide issue ("free" sections). Its just business. It was good, now its not.
Love the keyboard warriors who call everyone else out anonymously. Lets see the portfolio that is so much "more" than all us peons...
So basically you don't care you sell through an agency that scams it's clients,
and I'm the keyboard warrior . ok. you're right.
Did you even read the reviews? They are all from people who did not cancel their subscription in time. That's not a scam, but laziness on the customer's end. Read contracts before you sign them! Just because it's online and you click a button it doesn't mean it isn't a binding contract.
You can find the exact same reviews on Truspilot for every stock photo agency that offers yearly subscriptions. Shutterstock has them, iStock has them, Adobe has them, Dremastime has them.
People sign up and don't realize the cheapes prices are for a yearly subscription and if you want out after a month you need to pay for a different subscription that costs you more for photos. Or people sign up for the free trial, without reading that you actually have to cancel it. Signing contracts without reading them and then giving the company a bad review for your error, that's just stupidity.
There is a reason you can't just back out of yearly subscriptions: You already paid the cheapes price possible for images you downloaded and that price only comes with the condition that you pay for a minimum of 12 months. That's the condition you agreed to and you can't expect to pay the same cheap price, without fulfilling that condition.
If you only want a few images, you have to pay much more per image as part of an on demand package. Allowing people to cancel yearly subscription before 12 months would mean giving away images that should be sold for on demand package prices for the lowers subscription package prices. The only ones being scamed like this would be the agencies (not the artists by the way. We don't earn a dime from subscription plans customers's don't want/need and use anymore, so we basically get screwed over either way.)
Thank you Firn for detailing this. Trustpilot and other rating portals are usually the vomit bag for people who are not able to solve problems or admit their own mistakes. The negative reviews I have classified exactly like you.
-
So basically you don't care you sell through an agency that scams it's clients,
and I'm the keyboard warrior . ok. you're right.
Lol, deny and deflect, as usual. So that's a no on the portfolio hey? I figured.
Regarding your first line, that's a big assumption on your part. I do hope you put more thought into your work than your debating skills.
How did you know I came here to get feedback regarding debating and my portfolio,
from some loser I never met nor give a flying *** about? (who also hides his portfolio, by the way)
* you're a psychic.
No dude, you're wasting both of our times, and clearly yours isn't valuable.
I'm here to expose the scammy subscription plan adobe enforced on both
Customers and contributors,
(They didn't ask videographers if they are CONSENTING to having their items given for $2.80 instead of $28)
Additionally, to expose the low-key pedo vibes coming out of Stocksy, (luckily they removed the little boy with the drag outfit from their front page since, but still feature some perverted photos of little boys)
https://www.stocksy.com/3000590/young-boy-having-make-up-applied-by-a-make-up-artist (https://www.stocksy.com/3000590/young-boy-having-make-up-applied-by-a-make-up-artist)
https://www.stocksy.com/2782918/boy-dressed-in-velvet-and-heels-chats-to-his-sister (https://www.stocksy.com/2782918/boy-dressed-in-velvet-and-heels-chats-to-his-sister)
https://www.stocksy.com/3200102/gender-play (https://www.stocksy.com/3200102/gender-play)
(Gender play?? this is hardly a 10 year old boy what!!!)
and also the paid reviews Envato has on Trustpilot.
However,
If there's ever a need for someone to tell me how amazing my work is or how good my debating skills are,
I know where to find you :-* :-* :-*
Good night sweetheart.
Oooh you know where to find me. Did I hit a nerve?
You know what irritates me? People who have an elitist attitude and sell on microstock, its oxymoronic. Everyone here knows who I am, where my work is, and so on. You would too if you took a half second to look. But like your debate skills, your comprehension is just as bad.
FYI your other post makes you sound as dumb as I thought you were to begin with.
Still no on the portfolio too, right? I ask so that the audience can judge whether you actually are someone worth listening to. But I think you've cleared that up nicely already.
-
Dear people, what about photos eligible for free collection submitted to adobe via wirestock? How is wirestock going to handle it?
Well actually you are making a good point. Will they cash in on their eligible photos? Will they pay the contributors their share? Or will they do nothing? Interesting.
Seems a perfect opportunity for them to hit and run. It's not that things were going that swell lately. And now there is this big pile of money lurking :)
Hi, I didn't participated in any free collection in the past and I'm not sure if I ever will. But, recently I asked about the eligibility process on the Wirestock's slack channel, how they handle it. I got the answer that they take into a count the "Instant Pay" setting that can be changed (to true or false) anytime for any photo in the creators portfolio. Their selection process is based on this setting and on the Adobe's rules of amount of downloads. And at the end, if the Adobe will choose the photos as well, the creator will get: $5 - 15% for every selected photo. I know that the same way this was done the last year and some contributors were very happy with the results (based on the chats in the Wirestock's slack channel).
-
..
-
They can't produce what we do (if they could, they would've a long time ago).
Actually, Mat is working for Adobe, and he is also producing what we do. 😋
Yeah, the man has skills...
https://stock.adobe.com/nz/contributor/19000/mat-hayward
-
I only ask Adobe that if it is going to change the commissions with the photos as it has done with the video or to modify the income of the subscriptions in the style of Shutter and istock, that must be notify NOW of any change so as not to have one-year commitments with them and delete the photos to upload them to other more profitable exclusive sites, what's more, any changes made during that year should be grounds for removing the free photos collection.