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

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

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

Quote from: Pauws99 on October 17, 2020, 22:17
"The work of underepresented groups is so valuable we are going to give it away".

They are using pretzel logic. 😀

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

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

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

Quote from: csm on October 17, 2020, 23:21
The thing that worries me is that stock is cheap enough as it is, a good proportion of sales under $1, how can clients claim that it too expensive?

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

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

Do not give them ideas that can generate business profit.

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 18, 2020, 00:32

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Shelma1 on October 18, 2020, 01:53Why not give Adobe software away for free to attract people to licensing images?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Trippy on October 18, 2020, 23:14

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I quit buying when they switched to subscription.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 19, 2020, 08:46

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

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

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

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

How much?

Quote from: Artist on October 19, 2020, 09:20

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 19, 2020, 08:46

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

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

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

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

How much?

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

Quote from: Noedelhap on October 19, 2020, 08:46

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

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

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

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

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