MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Original Work at Risk - AI image to image exploitation  (Read 2234 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: November 05, 2024, 00:00 »
+4
Recently, I came across many contributors which have used my work in generating similar AI-generated images.

Creating and maintaining original works takes time and with such AI tools creating replicas is super easy.
This is serious copyright infringement and the companies needs to look into this.

Companies should keep the original work and AI generate work as a separate two categories.

I feel sad to see this.  :(


« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2024, 01:40 »
0
This is a real problem.

I even found one case where somebody copied my image with a German word, but the word is spelled wrong in his image and he has good search positions with it.

What I am trying to do is make my descriptions much shorter and more generic. Then at least they have to load a screenshot of my file into an ai for description, one additional step.

I hope they prefer to go to a port where every description is perfectly usable directly for ai.

But it is a problem.

I do believe especially with people, many customers will choose to exclude ai from their search, which is very easy to do.

« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2024, 04:57 »
0
This is a real problem.

I even found one case where somebody copied my image with a German word, but the word is spelled wrong in his image and he has good search positions with it.

What I am trying to do is make my descriptions much shorter and more generic. Then at least they have to load a screenshot of my file into an ai for description, one additional step.

I hope they prefer to go to a port where every description is perfectly usable directly for ai.

But it is a problem.

I do believe especially with people, many customers will choose to exclude ai from their search, which is very easy to do.

Making the description shorter will not stop someone trying to describe your image. You can send the image to an AI API, let the AI describe the image and use that as a prompt. But yes, it is an extra step and ill-fated newbies who just watched on how to become a millionaire with adobestock youtube video won't be able to do that, but people who understand ai and use it programatically will.

« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2024, 05:37 »
+1
Recently, I came across many contributors which have used my work in generating similar AI-generated images.

Creating and maintaining original works takes time and with such AI tools creating replicas is super easy.
This is serious copyright infringement and the companies needs to look into this.

Companies should keep the original work and AI generate work as a separate two categories.

I feel sad to see this.  :(

You can be sure that these contributors are reading you on this forum... They like AI power sooo much...

« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2024, 10:05 »
+3
This is a real problem.

I even found one case where somebody copied my image with a German word, but the word is spelled wrong in his image and he has good search positions with it.

What I am trying to do is make my descriptions much shorter and more generic. Then at least they have to load a screenshot of my file into an ai for description, one additional step.

I hope they prefer to go to a port where every description is perfectly usable directly for ai.

But it is a problem.

I do believe especially with people, many customers will choose to exclude ai from their search, which is very easy to do.

Yes, as I've said many times... "AI" is not an actual "thinking" machine, but rather (for the most part all jewish-run as well) theft based machines. So basically they steal/scrape data, then arrange it into "buckets" - then "blend" the output (this is also true of things like chatGPT, etc).

So if you have a "detailed" description, i.e., "Sunset in a blue mountain with three seagulls flying above at 3:05 p.m." - when the so-called "AI" steals the images - there are very few images (if any aside from that one) that it can arrange into buckets called "Sunset in a blue mountain with three seagulls flying above at 3:05 p.m.". (There of course is a little more to it than just that, but for simplicity this is how I am explaining it).

So if someone uses that exact same prompt - because the "reference" material the AI stole from only has that SINGLE image - it will most likely "create" (aka "blend") something very similar - because it doesn't have other reference images to blend together with... So that is why the image(s) will look virtually identical.

HOWEVER, if you have something called "Sunset". Well, there are probably 100's of thousands of images just called "Sunset" - so it now can steal ("blend") from 100,000 images - and so it is unlikely that it will look 'just' like your image...

So Cobalt - you are correct - by using generic descriptions - it makes it much more difficult for someone to simply steal your work.

Because the "ai" tools are ALL THEFT based. They are NOT "creation" tools - they are "THEFT-BASED" tools. That is why it makes it "easy" for people to "steal" things using the same prompts.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2024, 10:11 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2024, 12:37 »
+3
Maybe leave out the racism, how about it?

And IT stuff usually comes or is co developped in Asia, so there will be lots of hindu, muslim developers as well in addition to atheist, christians and maybe wiccan believers...

The biggest disadvantage of having ultrageneric titles and descriptions is that it supposedly is bad for seo. Your files will be more difficult to pick up by the crawlers and probably achieve less specific rankings.

It is also bad for the agencies for the same reason.

But I think a lot of people will start doing it in the hope that the copy cats move on to the ports with all the prompts still included.

There are plenty of legit ai creation tools, i.e. the ones where we get paid for data set trainings.

Today I got 71 dollars from pond5, in November it was 180. For 1100 simple clips that is a nice add on.

The people with 30k ports are probably again swimming in money.

So if we get paid, ai training is a different thing, it becomes additional income.

« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2024, 16:52 »
0
Maybe leave out the racism, how about it?

And IT stuff usually comes or is co developped in Asia, so there will be lots of hindu, muslim developers as well in addition to atheist, christians and maybe wiccan believers...

The biggest disadvantage of having ultrageneric titles and descriptions is that it supposedly is bad for seo. Your files will be more difficult to pick up by the crawlers and probably achieve less specific rankings.

It is also bad for the agencies for the same reason.

But I think a lot of people will start doing it in the hope that the copy cats move on to the ports with all the prompts still included.

There are plenty of legit ai creation tools, i.e. the ones where we get paid for data set trainings.

Today I got 71 dollars from pond5, in November it was 180. For 1100 simple clips that is a nice add on.

The people with 30k ports are probably again swimming in money.

So if we get paid, ai training is a different thing, it becomes additional income.

Lol - are you referring to me? It's not "racist" stating the companies are jewish-owned - because they are - check for yourself - and it is significant to point that out when you understand (in 'general') their idea of what "doing business" is. It's most likely not the same as yours. Also - it's important to understand how certain cultures conduct business - and - the fact a lot of "anti-hate" legislature is specifically designed to make people such as it seems yourself afraid of stating the obvious. Look into the ownership of the companies - hang around a few to figure out the "business ethics" (or lack thereof) and some things will become quite apparent.

As for employees - you are correct. A lot of IT stuff is indeed developed in Asia, as well as East india. However, many IT companies have had to re-hire europeans, because after they went to hire "east indians" -  the quality was so utterly crappy - they had to get it redone. (I've personally hired east indians too and experienced that first hand... MULTIPLE times. It's just how they do business - they see what they can get away with, with doing the least amount of work possible - and if can be stolen and passed off as their own - even better). For asians - (western) companies have realized that is not necessarily a good idea either - because (a) many times they don't necessarily know what they are doing, and (b) data "mysteriously" goes missing, and magically competiting companies pop up. Lol - it is "SO" bad in some cases - that even ASIAN companies are EXTREMELY secretive within ASIA so their own employees don't steal their trade secrets.

Not "racist" when its true. I'm stating the obvious.

(PPS, being German, I thought you would be aware of the "programming" designed to make Germans feel REALLY bad about themselves for something that really didn't quite 'happen' the way the (jewish-owned) media portrays it... But that is an entirely different topic).

Getting back to the titling...

Yes. Ultra generic titles (potentially) can be 'bad' for SEO, if you are hoping to get SEO based sales (primarily from google). So it is a tradeoff - have some east indian rip it off to "get rich quick" when you use a complete title - but - have a chance of getting a sale from SEO... or make it harder for them to rip it off, but potentially affect SEO sales... Up to you...

Re: the dataset earnings - is that for the last year? Or just this month? If that is something you wanted/opted into, and are happy with - good job!
« Last Edit: November 05, 2024, 17:14 by SuperPhoto »

« Reply #7 on: November 06, 2024, 01:29 »
0
I opted into dataset trainings to get paid.

ALL my work and ALL my images anywhere on the internet have already been stolen without my consent to train ai software.

I refused to pay for Midjourney for a year because I hat their CEO. Still do.

But now I see getting an income from ai images and from dataset training as a way to get my royalties.

I would prefer to create ai only with software like firefly, but the quality is not as good.

So Midjourney and others stole all my files without asking me.

This is my way of getting paid.

I have 1100 videos on pond5 and few sales. Last month I got 180 dollars for dataset, this month 71. That is more than I got in sales, even though I had sales in both months.

Most of my clips are simple handheld shots done with my iphone.

We will se how it goes, but ai is a useful tool, it should just have professionally paid traning material.

If I am getting paid for datasets it means soemwhere a company is doing the right thing - paying for training material.


« Reply #8 on: November 06, 2024, 05:46 »
+5
Hi Artist,

I have a same problem as you. Some of my unique images were copied numerous of times with same long specific description and keywords. There are 200 pages of same image in search on Adobe, with almost no difference between them because they all  use only one image (mine) for a source and there is no similar other in concept and style for learning.

I guess if I complain to Adobe, they will say that there is no proof that they are using my image as source, it is AI... (?!)

My income from adobe is decreased and these images are no longer best sellers.
I also notice many portfolios with AI images on Shutterstock and some of them are best sellers on first page!

Making original images is time consuming, but I also put a time and effort to describe and keyword them and they just copy paste it from me. I'm furious and I'm so demotivated to create new content for thieves.

« Reply #9 on: November 07, 2024, 04:23 »
+5


I guess if I complain to Adobe, they will say that there is no proof that they are using my image as source, it is AI... (?!)


I did complaint with one agency and they reviewed the case and banned the author who uploaded very similar work to mine.
But the point is, I don't have so much time to hunt for such culprits. Agencies needs to take action and make their terms and conditions stronger.

AI is ruining the market for both buyer and seller.

« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2024, 06:09 »
+4
Recently, I came across many contributors which have used my work in generating similar AI-generated images.

Creating and maintaining original works takes time and with such AI tools creating replicas is super easy.
This is serious copyright infringement and the companies needs to look into this.

Companies should keep the original work and AI generate work as a separate two categories.

I feel sad to see this.  :(

Even former Stock customers are doing that, which likely represents a significantly larger dimension of the problem.

« Reply #11 on: November 07, 2024, 13:26 »
+1
But I am a bit surprised why stock agencies dont protect the thumbnails and preview images, for example, with Glaze: https://glaze.cs.uchicago.edu/what-is-glaze.html

« Reply #12 on: November 10, 2024, 04:57 »
0
Hi Artist,

I have a same problem as you. Some of my unique images were copied numerous of times with same long specific description and keywords. There are 200 pages of same image in search on Adobe, with almost no difference between them because they all  use only one image (mine) for a source and there is no similar other in concept and style for learning.

I guess if I complain to Adobe, they will say that there is no proof that they are using my image as source, it is AI... (?!)

My income from adobe is decreased and these images are no longer best sellers.
I also notice many portfolios with AI images on Shutterstock and some of them are best sellers on first page!

Making original images is time consuming, but I also put a time and effort to describe and keyword them and they just copy paste it from me. I'm furious and I'm so demotivated to create new content for thieves.

Same here. I saw one port who copied mine and others images on a bestseller list, I watched it grew fast to 100 pages. Im still at 30 pages.
people who are using AI to copy images of other contributors are inflicting the most damage. 
« Last Edit: November 12, 2024, 11:51 by Mifornia »

« Reply #13 on: November 10, 2024, 12:23 »
+3
I opted into dataset trainings to get paid.

ALL my work and ALL my images anywhere on the internet have already been stolen without my consent to train ai software.

I refused to pay for Midjourney for a year because I hat their CEO. Still do.

But now I see getting an income from ai images and from dataset training as a way to get my royalties.

I would prefer to create ai only with software like firefly, but the quality is not as good.

So Midjourney and others stole all my files without asking me.

This is my way of getting paid.

I have 1100 videos on pond5 and few sales. Last month I got 180 dollars for dataset, this month 71. That is more than I got in sales, even though I had sales in both months.

Most of my clips are simple handheld shots done with my iphone.

We will se how it goes, but ai is a useful tool, it should just have professionally paid traning material.

If I am getting paid for datasets it means soemwhere a company is doing the right thing - paying for training material.

Interesting perspective... but - aren't you concerned about the sales being very shortterm? I.e., I suspect only for 1-2 years will there be what some say 'considerable' dataset earnings - but once you've allowed a 3rd party company to create competing videos with yours - (kind of like the 'ai images') - you're sales will most likely drop significantly altogether... so you get a little bit 'immediate' income - but long term, very little because you've now "allowed" people to make cheap knockoffs of your original videos...

« Reply #14 on: November 11, 2024, 05:30 »
+7

AI is ruining the market for both buyer and seller.


In another discussion I read this sentence: "I was able to generate about 6000 high quality images within about 4 weeks, of which I upscale and upload about approx 100 a day."

4 weeks = 6,000 high quality images

I am a photographer who has been doing stock full time for 15 years (microstock gives me about 70% of my total earnings as a photographer), I have earned just under 400k so far with about 5,700 high quality images (I spend on average about 1 hour for each image for retouching on Photoshop).

With AI, a contributor can now create in 4 weeks what I created in 15 years.

For now my earnings are holding up, but everything is becoming more difficult and I have had to increase my annual production up to 100 images per month. I can't do more, otherwise the quality of my images decreases.

I am looking for new niches, images that are difficult to copy with AI, but what future will we original photographers and illustrators have?

We need agencies to protect us and this is not happening by allowing copycats and spammers to invade the image market and suffocate the visibility of us who have original ideas.

In the last few months I have given up on consistently uploading images to Print on Demand sites, there the invasion of AI images is unstoppable and with the old methods of artistic creation (painting, photography, digital art) it is impossible to keep up with AI production.

I have no desire to become an AI creator, because it can bring in money, but I cannot control my artistic creations: the machine does 90% of the work and the artist with his prompt only 10%. It is the AI ​​that decides the output based on the average taste of people ... and this is truly the death of art, because art is error, art is divergence, art is novelty.

I just don't like making art with AI, I don't feel like it's something I did. I think it's a production of the people who created the algorithm, with their tastes, their choices, their way of seeing the world. Not mine.

Unfortunately I do not see a bright future for us original creators.

« Reply #15 on: November 11, 2024, 10:52 »
+3
I opted into dataset trainings to get paid.

ALL my work and ALL my images anywhere on the internet have already been stolen without my consent to train ai software.

I refused to pay for Midjourney for a year because I hat their CEO. Still do.

But now I see getting an income from ai images and from dataset training as a way to get my royalties.

I would prefer to create ai only with software like firefly, but the quality is not as good.

So Midjourney and others stole all my files without asking me.

This is my way of getting paid.

I have 1100 videos on pond5 and few sales. Last month I got 180 dollars for dataset, this month 71. That is more than I got in sales, even though I had sales in both months.

Most of my clips are simple handheld shots done with my iphone.

We will se how it goes, but ai is a useful tool, it should just have professionally paid traning material.

If I am getting paid for datasets it means soemwhere a company is doing the right thing - paying for training material.

Interesting perspective... but - aren't you concerned about the sales being very shortterm? I.e., I suspect only for 1-2 years will there be what some say 'considerable' dataset earnings - but once you've allowed a 3rd party company to create competing videos with yours - (kind of like the 'ai images') - you're sales will most likely drop significantly altogether... so you get a little bit 'immediate' income - but long term, very little because you've now "allowed" people to make cheap knockoffs of your original videos...

the damage is already done, all visible content has been scraped, including all my videos on all stock sites

this theft is final and forever

even if i opt out of future datatset earnings all my files are already part of scraped internet packages

and anything new i upload also gets "harvested" as well, wether I agree or not.

Robert Kneschke is currently suing the German LAION association who are scraping the internet for visual media. In the first instance LAION won, they have the right to collect the data.

Now the question is do they have the right to pass it on and make it available to others, especially for commercial use.

If he cannot get his files removed from their dataset packages, I have no chance.

So dataset royalties are the only way to get any kind of direct compensation for ai training.

The other is to use ai to generate content and make money selling ai files.

I am not worried at all that my content has less value.

It is 100 times faster to just make a few clicks at a stock site to license media than it is to generate content with ai.

Simple example

Elderly woman doing yoga

If you do a keyword search for woman yoga elderly at a stock site you get millions of files to choose from, refine the search a bit and you get enough files to get back to your project

Try doing the same with ai

Suddenly you have to decide on all the following details

- is she doing yoga at home or in the gym?

- in a group or with a personal trainer, is she doing it on the terrasse, garden, beach, hotel room

- which ethnic group or country

- long hair, short hair, hair tied, up, hair loose, tidy or messy

- which yoga pose

- casual clothing, what type, colors

 - lighting - hard soft, morning light, evening sunset

- expression, smiling, closed eyes meditation, a little sweaty and exhausted, happy and energized...

- frontal shooting, from above, side view, angled, from below...

- post processing - bright, matte, toning, vibrant, vignette, extra sunflare...

etc...

You can easily spend a whole afternoon prompting until you get what you want. And often you don't really know what you exactly want and are looking for some inspiration.

Now do the same thing with video

- close up, zooming in out, panning, wide angle, gimbal following, moving around the lady or just camera steady on tripod

- moving your angles top view to frontal, side view to low angle frontal etc..

etc...video is much worse

The customers have no time

The biggest issue is not customers using ai, but other producers creating similar content to mine by feeding my images or video into an ai machine for easy copying. Including my ai images, for which I often did a lot of research to get details right.


For video I am back to doing normal video with a camera, it is much easier and faster to get things done the way I want to.

Also there are only 60 million video clips, so there is an endless amount to shoot.

I also don't think video ai is really ready, I have played around a bit but I am not that impressed.

And then there is editorial video which sells quite well and is not affected by ai.

I don't know if I will still have a stock job in 10 years, but at the moment I am not worried. The more I work with ai, the less scared I am.

« Reply #16 on: November 11, 2024, 15:57 »
0
.
« Last Edit: November 11, 2024, 16:04 by Yola »


« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2024, 04:30 »
+1

AI is ruining the market for both buyer and seller.


In another discussion I read this sentence: "I was able to generate about 6000 high quality images within about 4 weeks, of which I upscale and upload about approx 100 a day."

4 weeks = 6,000 high quality images

I am a photographer who has been doing stock full time for 15 years (microstock gives me about 70% of my total earnings as a photographer), I have earned just under 400k so far with about 5,700 high quality images (I spend on average about 1 hour for each image for retouching on Photoshop).

With AI, a contributor can now create in 4 weeks what I created in 15 years.

For now my earnings are holding up, but everything is becoming more difficult and I have had to increase my annual production up to 100 images per month. I can't do more, otherwise the quality of my images decreases.

I am looking for new niches, images that are difficult to copy with AI, but what future will we original photographers and illustrators have?

We need agencies to protect us and this is not happening by allowing copycats and spammers to invade the image market and suffocate the visibility of us who have original ideas.

In the last few months I have given up on consistently uploading images to Print on Demand sites, there the invasion of AI images is unstoppable and with the old methods of artistic creation (painting, photography, digital art) it is impossible to keep up with AI production.

I have no desire to become an AI creator, because it can bring in money, but I cannot control my artistic creations: the machine does 90% of the work and the artist with his prompt only 10%. It is the AI ​​that decides the output based on the average taste of people ... and this is truly the death of art, because art is error, art is divergence, art is novelty.

I just don't like making art with AI, I don't feel like it's something I did. I think it's a production of the people who created the algorithm, with their tastes, their choices, their way of seeing the world. Not mine.

Unfortunately I do not see a bright future for us original creators.

That's the course of time, the progress of technology.

Do you think the analog photographers in Kodak's best days, who like you, grumbled about digital photographers and didn't adapt, survived on the market?

As an experienced photographer, you can create unique images with your brilliant ideas and AI.
You can use your own photos as templates. Transfer your unique style to the AI images.

AI is just a tool. How you use it and make the most of it is up to you.

« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2024, 06:05 »
+4
AI is just a tool. How you use it and make the most of it is up to you.

Absolutely not, YOU are the tool of AI, and are submissive!

« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2024, 06:10 »
0

AI is ruining the market for both buyer and seller.


In another discussion I read this sentence: "I was able to generate about 6000 high quality images within about 4 weeks, of which I upscale and upload about approx 100 a day."

4 weeks = 6,000 high quality images

I am a photographer who has been doing stock full time for 15 years (microstock gives me about 70% of my total earnings as a photographer), I have earned just under 400k so far with about 5,700 high quality images (I spend on average about 1 hour for each image for retouching on Photoshop).

With AI, a contributor can now create in 4 weeks what I created in 15 years.

Why did you decide that AI generated images are sold as well as your photos? I think that the AI ​​image database is already a dump where few people buy anything.
Shoot videos. At the moment, AI has not reached video and does not compete. I do not think that AI will reach video and it is unknown when this will happen.

« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2024, 06:26 »
+2
Why did you decide that AI generated images are sold as well as your photos? I think that the AI ​​image database is already a dump where few people buy anything.
Shoot videos. At the moment, AI has not reached video and does not compete. I do not think that AI will reach video and it is unknown when this will happen.

No, I don't think AI images sell like my photographs. The problem is that they occupy search results and some buyers buy them.

Here on the forum we have cobalt that sells a lot of AI images, so there is a market for AI.

Maybe buyers will get tired, but we don't know yet. (They've already tired me, when I see a newspaper article or a blog post that has AI images I associate it with a low quality article and I don't read it. Many people are associating AI with low quality. Making images, texts or music in AI takes little time and people are learning it. And they avoid it.).

I take photographs because I am a photographer with 20 years of experience. I am not a videomaker. It's a different job, it requires different equipment and new skills. And I don't like it like photography.

« Reply #21 on: November 25, 2024, 06:58 »
0
Why did you decide that AI generated images are sold as well as your photos? I think that the AI ​​image database is already a dump where few people buy anything.
Shoot videos. At the moment, AI has not reached video and does not compete. I do not think that AI will reach video and it is unknown when this will happen.

No, I don't think AI images sell like my photographs. The problem is that they occupy search results and some buyers buy them.

Here on the forum we have cobalt that sells a lot of AI images, so there is a market for AI.

Maybe buyers will get tired, but we don't know yet. (They've already tired me, when I see a newspaper article or a blog post that has AI images I associate it with a low quality article and I don't read it. Many people are associating AI with low quality. Making images, texts or music in AI takes little time and people are learning it. And they avoid it.).

I take photographs because I am a photographer with 20 years of experience. I am not a videomaker. It's a different job, it requires different equipment and new skills. And I don't like it like photography.

Yes, there is AI search, but only when the buyer consciously chooses it. I don't think AI will take over the entire market. But if you are losing income and think it is because of AI, then learn to shoot videos. You have time.

« Reply #22 on: November 25, 2024, 07:10 »
+2
I would also start generating AI images myself. But there are problems that I dont like.
1. Adobe often bans the portfolios of these authors.
2. Not all stock agencies accept AI images.
Well, I dont see any competition from AI in the video market yet. Yes, I get paid to teach AI to create videos. But the video market is very small and I think that with such a small volume, AI wont learn to create normal videos, not to mention their technical quality (bitrate, format).
But if AI starts creating competition for me in the video market, I will start creating AI videos without hesitation.

« Reply #23 on: November 25, 2024, 07:17 »
0

Here on the forum we have cobalt that sells a lot of AI images, so there is a market for AI.



Just wanted to point out that I have spent the last 18 months doing nearly only ai because I was learning how to use it. And yes, thankfully what I create sells, but it sells because I do a lot of research into the details of what is missing.

Next year my attention will shift back to normal videos and photos. I still have thousands of ai images to process, so I will still upload them, but I will prompt a lot less, because I now have my own prompt library that I can easily tweak for something different.

It will be interesting to see how much money I can make when I can start "activating" very old ports on istock, pond5 etc...especially curious about the coming video sales. Also uploaded nearly nothing to Blackboxglobal as well.

The disadvantage of ai at the moment is that Adobe is the only real platform to make maoney with ai.

In theory, I should make more money with normal photos and videos, because there is no learning curve and I have the sales experience.

Will keep sharing my results for those interested.

I also really look forward to holding a camera again.

« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2024, 07:21 »
+1
The disadvantage of ai at the moment is that Adobe is the only real platform to make maoney with ai.
+100
 ;D ;D ;D


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
3 Replies
3355 Views
Last post March 06, 2008, 13:33
by Waldo4
5 Replies
4087 Views
Last post December 22, 2010, 16:58
by disorderly
0 Replies
2138 Views
Last post April 02, 2011, 22:56
by lola
0 Replies
2085 Views
Last post December 18, 2012, 17:41
by Cricket
13 Replies
6293 Views
Last post July 31, 2016, 15:00
by ShadySue

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors