Author Topic: New submission limits for Adobe Stock Contributors (Read 3535 times)

Atomazul · « **Reply #50 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:35 »

As fascinating as it is to see how quickly people start turning on each other during adversity, and convoluting a vague announcement into a cultural discussion guided by race-based assumptions...

May I suggest we try to use this forum thread for something useful and pertinent to the topic at hand, as in, comparing notes? Like, has anyone actually hit any limits yet? I haven't.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #51 on:** **Yesterday** at 07:59 »

people are people,not bots!

and then you didn't find anything useful in all this talk?that's very sad!

anyway come on..I'll satisfy your curiosity...

This is the message that appears in your account when you reach your limit:

I haven't reached the limit yet,but I've seen several of these messages already,so it looks like a lot of people have already reached the limit,probably all people who upload at least above average.

angelacat · « **Reply #52 on:** **Yesterday** at 09:30 »

Herugliness - good point. Like most people, I guess, I shoot series of things so may get 5 to 20 photos and/or videos. So a whole shoot could be rejected because someone else did something similar and I didn't spend hours searching adobe stock site. That's props, electric, petrol (if I visit somewhere) and obviously time. I enjoy stock but I'm not gonna work for peanuts per hour either because whole shoots are rejected.

DiscreetDuck · « **Reply #53 on:** **Yesterday** at 10:18 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on Yesterday at 05:29

...if they reject a lot,even for the "similar" ones,they do it because it's necessary.

Of course since you consider it's necessary to flood AI, and that a photographer is a human staying all days in front of a screen, by despising hard working traditional has-been and skilled photographers.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #54 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:28 »

Quote from: DiscreetDuck on Yesterday at 10:18

Quote from: Injustice for all on Yesterday at 05:29
...if they reject a lot,even for the "similar" ones,they do it because it's necessary.

Of course since you consider it's necessary to flood AI, and that a photographer is a human staying all days in front of a screen, by despising hard working traditional has-been and skilled photographers.

In my opinion you underestimate the work of those who produce AI content.

Even with AI as in real photography and videography there are different ways of working.

There are those who,for example,take and produce real snapshots,in order to obtain a certain quantity without worries,and there are those who try to take real unique,well-curated and noteworthy shots.

with AI things don't change,what changes is the means by which the product is obtained.

as far as I'm concerned my port is still mostly real,but soon it probably won't be anymore,let's say that I've become more serious with AIs for a year,but I still intend to continue with the illustrative editorials as soon as I've "finished" the current project,and then resume it later.

but all of this clearly also depends on how it goes.

I hope that the work I'm doing now will change something soon,so in the future I can afford better photography equipment and get back to taking real photos and videos too,pay my travel expenses and everything else,things that are science fiction for me at the moment!

zeljkok · « **Reply #55 on:** **Yesterday** at 11:48 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on Yesterday at 05:29

I'm sure that Adobe is doing it mainly for us

My dear friend, Adobe -or any other company for that matter- is NOT doing it for us. It is doing it only for money, or for themselves. We are just necessary nuisance, puny ants they couldn't care less about

Dami · « **Reply #56 on:** **Yesterday** at 16:49 »

Although communication is lacking, I think this is overall a step in the right direction for Adobe Stock. Adobe was one of the only agencies that leaned into the AI trend instead of against it. This lead to a lot of drawbacks (e.g. problems with the algorithm, more recently the "similar images" acceptance wall), but I'm hoping they continue to make improvements like these for the future.

f8 · « **Reply #57 on:** **Yesterday** at 18:23 »

Quote from: zeljkok on Yesterday at 11:48

Quote from: Injustice for all on Yesterday at 05:29

I'm sure that Adobe is doing it mainly for us

My dear friend, Adobe -or any other company for that matter- is NOT doing it for us. It is doing it only for money, or for themselves. We are just necessary nuisance, puny ants they couldn't care less about

This reminds me of many many years ago when Getty Images was a public company and during one of the AGM's Jonathan Klein reported that there were record profits and the biggest liability was paying content creators. Long story short, Adobe is not your friend.

WendyT · « **Reply #58 on:** **Yesterday** at 20:10 »

Thank you for sharing that screen shot of the "limit reached", it still concerns me that it is very vague and lacking in detail. If they can use AI to address you personally in an email message then I am sure they can get AI to let you know the exact reason, or let you know ahead of time what your limits are. Use AI for something useful that actually helps the contributors.

Injustice for all · « **Reply #59 on:** **Yesterday** at 21:15 »

@zeljkok,my friend,we have already had this conversation many times,and you know how I think.

yes,it's all a business,but in my opinion Adobe is not SS and not even Istock,For Adobe every creator is an investment,the more creators are successful on Adobe Stock,the better it is for Adobe,because is a company specialized in software development.

so it's a completely different situation from Istock for example or SS which cut royalties in the midst of the pandemic,and close the forum.

Adobe still maintains honest royalties despite the times we live in,this it's really admirable in my opinion,and then the list of positive things are many,in my opinion with Adobe,but the discussion becomes long,I think you understand my point.

As far as I'm concerned,the only thing I'm not satisfied with about Adobe is the number of my sales,which is too low,but this is clearly also my responsibility,and I'm working towards that.

@WendyT You're welcome!

the issue of unknown limits is,in my opinion,a desired and complex thing at the same time.

desired,because it leaves Adobe freedom of movement on these limits according to the cases,in my opinion it is useless to impose a fixed limit for everyone,it cannot be done,it is wrong,because it depends on the cases,so it is better not to make them known.

complex,because even if Adobe would like to make these limits known,it would be rather complicated,since they are different for everyone,and can change,but clearly this thing can be done if Adobe really wants to,and who knows,maybe it will be done.

also the fact that the limits depend on rejections,but also I believe on the age of the account,and on sales in general,I think they were all choices that seem right to me.

I am sure,from the way they are working,that they are managing the current situation in the best possible way,and obviously I'm happy about that,because I see the will,which I honestly don't see in other agencies.

then clearly all this can be subjective,maybe someone is better off with Istock,Alamy or DP or DS or any other agency.

zeljkok · « **Reply #60 on:** **Today** at 00:13 »

Quote from: Injustice for all on Yesterday at 21:15

... snip ...

(In)Justice for all: Too much Metallica. Try ACDC: "Back in Black" (a.k.a Adobe Reviews) or "Highway to Hell" (Direction of microstock industry)

Injustice for all · « **Reply #61 on:** **Today** at 05:11 »

Quote from: zeljkok on Today at 00:13

Quote from: Injustice for all on Yesterday at 21:15
... snip ...

(In)Justice for all: Too much Metallica. Try ACDC: "Back in Black" (a.k.a Adobe Reviews) or "Highway to Hell" (Direction of microstock industry)

Metallica,Faith No More,Rage Against the Machine,Green Day,Smashing Pumpkins,Alan Parsons.....and of course,always Pink Floyd!

mike123 · « **Reply #62 on:** **Today** at 09:27 »

My rejection rate in the last 1-2 weeks is 100% due to similarity. I usually upload content, which is better quality than let's say 95% of similar content by other contributors. This strategy still generates a lot of sales for me. Now Adobe rejects higher quality content, because they already got similar content in lower quality - that's surely great for their customers

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: New submission limits for Adobe Stock Contributors (Read 3535 times)

Atomazul

Injustice for all

angelacat

DiscreetDuck

Injustice for all

zeljkok

Dami

f8

WendyT

Injustice for all

zeljkok

Injustice for all

mike123

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors