|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Lowls
1
« on: May 22, 2024, 02:39 »
Constantly. Click on the link and it hangs and barely loads. However if you're using a vpn changing countries for a faster can work on other sites to stop the hanging but it doesn't work on this site.
2
« on: April 17, 2024, 00:37 »
Yes AI should get paid less for each image. And this will happen anyway. Already it cannot be copywritten.
But A.I. is not photography. At best it is digital artwork and the creator isn't buying a paint brush and paints and using talent to create a painting. Just typing a sentence and pressing go.
And the legal cases that are coming regarding A.I. are going to be rather painful. So yeah real photography should get more simply because it's called "Stock Photography". Selling A.i. images isn't anything but the work of an algorithm. I can see the A.i. owners suddenly appropriating all of your digital imagery as their property.
4
« on: March 30, 2024, 05:02 »
One of my pasttimes is to go to book shops and flick through the first page after the cover to see where the image was taken.
I do see plenty of SS image used on covers (as well as Getty, less so AS), but it's usually as some part of composite with another image or more from the larger and more artistic agencies, Arcangel/Trevillion.
I don't think any serious publisher would use a SS or microstock image on its own knowing full well a competitor or even random business could start using it on let's say a toothpaste ad (or much worse) thus diminishing its uniqueness.
So, I think for a simple image it's OK to be paid little even for a book cover as it may not be strong enough to be used on its own. Plus it's RF subs and probably already sold 100s of times anyway (and buyers know this).
I find it difficult to justify it that way.
With an extended license, e.g. for print, the degree of commercial use is usually higher.
You have to distinguisch between an use for some random news / blog article as a gap filler or an use for print like a book cover.
A good book cover contributes significantly to a higher revenue amount, the commercial use aspect is much higher.
The same applies to print on demand stuff like t-shirts, etc.
So 10 cents are just extremely ridicilous low because the buyer will earn for sure thousand times more.
Ideally the extendend license would guarantee that the image is not used hundred of times but only the one buyer owns all rights.
The main problem is that no one is tracking the copyrights or the use restrictions (just like a half million prints, lol!), so such agencies just sell everything for some cents.
I agree that the licensing terms are too broad and vague for micros RF. Once we upload our images to microstock it's almost impossible then to track the usages and go after infrigement. The cost outweights any potential benefit except for a few rare cases.
We don't have to upload our images to these micros, there's always the option of going Alamy RM exclusive, that way we get a nice report everytime there is a usage and a clear procedure to go through to tackle infrigements (where the contributor can also earn from claims).
I'm happy at Arcangel as I know that the minimum I'll earn from a book cover is $75 net and as high as 4 figures. Once there is a sale I receive a report with type of license, the book title and author.
Archangel were a fail for me. It was a little difficult to understand what they wanted you to send them. In one part of the process they asked for 20 images to be sent and then in another they asked for 10. I decided to leave it for that time and although book covers would be very much my wheelhouse I preferred doing what I was doing. But I could easily churn out book covers and to demand given criteria to follow. Personally I find that process quite easy. However last year I thought because personal circumstances had changed, that I would try harder to understand what Archangel wanted. And entry has changed. They just want your link to your portfolio now. Easier to understand. So I sent them the link and received a curt thanks but no thanks. Odd because a good chunk of my port look very book coverlike. But no idea who or what looks at the portfolio link. I just wasn't for them. It's a strange world ms. I have one photo that sells over and over to the same company as well as elsewhere. I assume they must use a limited license (not actually sure) but when we had the map it showed the same location each time. Its hilarious because its an item that isn't at all what they use it for on their website. Not even close and doesn't look like it at all but they keep purchasing it and they use it to sell their product.
5
« on: March 30, 2024, 04:52 »
Congratulations on getting $1.88. I once got paid 10 cents for an image that ended up on a classical music CD cover. Furthermore, it was an image that was classified as editorial, because it had IP content. Understandably, I was very unhappy about this and contacted SS complaining that an editorial image had been used for commercial purposes. They politely told me to sling my hook.
The legal decision whether an image is Editorial or can be used as commercial is up to the buyer.
A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate
https://www.shutterstock.com/license
Alright, stupid question, but nevertheless, here I go.: what is considered as reproduction of an image. Less than 500.000 prints seems plausible. But what about views on webshops like Amazon? Every time someone sees your image (web page gets loaded) it's a reproduction? Every time a webshop adds the book it's a reproduction? More or less the same question for newspapers or magazines. Everytime someone reads the online article it's a "reproduction"?
Views are not printed impressions. But no surprise how the limitations have gone out the window and instead of 50,000 like the early years, it's 500,000 which is nearly impossible to reach in normal commercial use.
I still say, nice sale Lowls at least for bragging rights and someone appreciating your work, and if it was me, I wouldn't buy the book, but I'd try to find it on sale at a bookstore and take a photo of that. I have many book covers, and I don't own any of them, plus I've never seen one on sale anyplace except Amazon. Somewhere I sold a double wide, center image, double truck, for a magazine, and since it's just listed as sold, and where, I wonder who bought that one?
Just a slight correction. The law states it is a reproduction. A downloadable reproduction as it happens. Annoyingly.
6
« on: March 15, 2024, 18:31 »
A STANDARD IMAGE LICENSE grants you the right to use Images:
Printed in physical form as part of product packaging and labeling, letterhead and business cards, point of sale advertising, CD and DVD cover art, or in the advertising and copy of tangible media, including magazines, newspapers, and books provided no Image is reproduced more than 500,000 times in the aggregate
https://www.shutterstock.com/license
Thanks Alex you're always there ready with the answer so thank you.
7
« on: March 14, 2024, 14:47 »
Im sorry to hear that. But stock agencies have no way to track and monitor how our works are used. So, no surprise.
I have and its extensive lol. Pages of results. But because SS are so obtuse about license fees is $1.88 legitimate in anyone's experience or would you expect a different amount.
8
« on: March 14, 2024, 14:37 »
... and for that honour I was paid $1.88
I didn't know it was for a book cover I only found it some time later. A couple of years on and the image is now everywhere. Ebay, amazon, Waterstones and pretty much every book site of any size as well as on book review sites and ... well you can imagine.
Now listening tonight to a legal channel they got onto copywrite law and useage of images and licensed images are usually only permitted one use and that's the use they were purchased for apparently. A website an article etc but I do know with regard to distribution SS stated that a run can be ... half a million copies is it now not sure.
So if at all, where do we think we stand atm I'm curious.
9
« on: March 13, 2024, 04:19 »
Adobe might have over 1 million registered producers. There is no way to offer individual personal service.
High end agencies offer that, but they just work with a few thousand people.
Just add it to the community channel, here are also Adobe admins reading there. If they find the problem interesting I am sure someone will look into it.
And you can also write to Mat, but I would try the community channel first.
I disagree with the personal service aspect, when you consider the massive revenue they generate. Of COURSE they can offer it, but they may choose not to because "investors" want more $$$ in their pockets.
You really want Adobe to hire 2000 people just to deal with all the complaints "why was my file declined"??
It will be by far the most abused system ever.
I'd rather they put that money into the sales team.
You can post your problems in the community chat and get quick and qualified feedback. And you can write to Mat if you believe it is very serious.
Adobe is a lo more responsive than other places.
I don't get why people expect the luxury treatment on a mass platform.
Sign up with a small exclusive agency and you will get all the direct communication you ever wanted.
There are always choices.
Why do you assume your job is to go around on the forum telling people off. You're literally a nobody and yet ... kinda all you do. No one asked you to no one sanctions it, you just do it because you expect you're permitted to. You haven't helped the poster or furthered knowledge. Why don't you just think about that for a little while. For the OP I have used this email to resolve a similar issue [email protected] not sure if it's still active but give it a go.
10
« on: March 07, 2024, 02:50 »
and remember they want high quality images. So they can give them away free as part of an incentive package.
11
« on: February 09, 2024, 13:58 »
12
« on: February 07, 2024, 10:42 »
We are writing to let you know about a pricing update for video content on Adobe Stock: 4K video clips will now be offered alongside HD clips for licensing as part of Adobe Stock subscriptions. This change will simplify the offering for Stock customers, allowing them to license HD and 4K video content as well as standard images, templates, 3D, and audio tracks using their subscriptions.
There is no change to the current royalty rate.
However, it's worth noting that per-video license royalty payments for 4K videos may see a reduction, as these videos will be available to subscription customers at varying discounts based on their plans. The existing Adobe Stock royalty rate (35%) remains consistent, calculated based on the price per clip. 4K video pricing remains unchanged for all on-demand clips and credit packs.
oh cool
oh f f s
13
« on: January 17, 2024, 10:05 »
...I tend to take photos that aren't represented very well.
Good photos are already well represented, and that's what I try to do. 
For my part, in 18 years, I have never complained about rejections, especially at Adobe. I just silently reacted by trying to progress and perfect my skills.
100% acceptance for my last batch at Adobe, I must clarify that I do not use and will never use AI to replace my photographic work. I know and I'm waiting for Adobe to clean up its contributors, that will come. Its inevitable, simple law of supply and demand. And the complaints will rain...
You misunderstand - certain subjects aren't represented very well. Good photos obviously are. But if you are perfecting your craft to get better then it can only benefit you. If you are perfecting your craft to provide better quality to Adobe you are literally wasting your time. Rarely are these images appearing on gallery walls and selling for hundreds. And with the inclusion of A.I. imagery your appeal will be diluted among them.
Fast and dirty is the way it's going with a stack it high and sell it cheap business plan. And you know that because that's happening at all of the agencies. So quality isn't gonna get you sales like it did. Subject matter will.
I agree with you A.I. isn't photography its paint by numbers using someone else's hands and paints and fooling yourself that you've created a masterpiece. I won't be using it because I enjoy what I do. I've been doing it a long time and it's my one love. But I won't continue to submit regularly to a system that is flawed when previously, when I lacked the skill and equipment I do now, I managed better approval rates and still do with other agencies. I'm not great but I'm ok at the basics.
I understood you perfectly, but you misunderstand me. The second degree brings subtlety to the exchanges, but you still need to be able to access it.
Sorry, but YOU were the one who was literally wasting your time by submitting a photo that won an award, since it was not accepted...
Clearly you didn't but whatever I can't comment on your personal experiences though you seem determined to correct mine. It's funny because I don't remember you being in the script so much when I wrote my experience. Crazy eh. The sentence "The second degree brings subtlety to the exchanges, but you still need to be able to access it" doesn't actually make sense in or out of any context and certainly doesn't pertain to anything I said but ok 👍 Prize. It has won a prize not an award but thanks for the promotion lol. And I'll leave you to have the last word because we both know you'll be having the last word. Can't help yourself can ya, ya little tinker you.
14
« on: January 17, 2024, 06:12 »
...I tend to take photos that aren't represented very well.
Good photos are already well represented, and that's what I try to do.
For my part, in 18 years, I have never complained about rejections, especially at Adobe. I just silently reacted by trying to progress and perfect my skills.
100% acceptance for my last batch at Adobe, I must clarify that I do not use and will never use AI to replace my photographic work. I know and I'm waiting for Adobe to clean up its contributors, that will come. Its inevitable, simple law of supply and demand. And the complaints will rain...
You misunderstand - certain subjects aren't represented very well. Good photos obviously are. But if you are perfecting your craft to get better then it can only benefit you. If you are perfecting your craft to provide better quality to Adobe you are literally wasting your time. Rarely are these images appearing on gallery walls and selling for hundreds. And with the inclusion of A.I. imagery your appeal will be diluted among them. Fast and dirty is the way it's going with a stack it high and sell it cheap business plan. And you know that because that's happening at all of the agencies. So quality isn't gonna get you sales like it did. Subject matter will. I agree with you A.I. isn't photography its paint by numbers using someone else's hands and paints and fooling yourself that you've created a masterpiece. I won't be using it because I enjoy what I do. I've been doing it a long time and it's my one love. But I won't continue to submit regularly to a system that is flawed when previously, when I lacked the skill and equipment I do now, I managed better approval rates and still do with other agencies. I'm not great but I'm ok at the basics.
15
« on: January 17, 2024, 02:39 »
Just over half of submitted pictures rejected for "quality issues."
Another chunk for Shutterstock then which took all of the last lot after rejection by adobe. One of which has become my new best seller. One of which has won a prize and several of the others have sold a few times.
The quality issue is Adobe.
Don't hesitate to post here the picture (Ai? real photo?) which has won a prize and was rejected by Adobe. No doubt, you will not.
Shutterstock takes EVERYTHING
hahahahaha Adobe are no different. What a pathetic response.
And no I won't stupidly post the photo here so it can be copied and nor will I post the photos that are doing well despite adobe's rejection.
But I'm sure you'll post a photo of your best sellers here to show your confidence in the whole process.
We wait with baited breath 🙄
huh just found another adobe rejection that's a book cover. At least Shutterstock sell even if it's for peanuts it's some peanuts.
Pathetic ? you should calm down your ardor a little. I wanted to suggest that you prove that Adobe's rejection was not legitimate.
If that were true you would have written "Can you post the image to show the rejection is not legitimate" like you manged above. Instead you wrote:
"Don't hesitate to post here the picture (Ai? real photo?) which has won a prize and was rejected by Adobe. No doubt, you will not.
If you think someone's a liar and imply as much - own it, don't try and crawl out of it just own it.
"One of which has become my new best seller. One of which has won a prize and several of the others have sold a few times."
If that were true you wouldn't bother to come to this forum / topic just to say that.
And yet it is and I have. And the logic behind it is that I submit to Adobe first. If they reject it I upload to SS. Not because SS take anything because they don't. But because they may get taken by SS. Invariably they are because I tend to take photos that aren't represented very well. And I upload to Adobe first because they didn't slash our payments to over half and their owner didn't post how sick he was of these people moaning and that they should get to work. I posted that here because it shows others that they arent the only ones it's happening to. Instead I'm a liar apparently. I am not.
16
« on: January 16, 2024, 18:24 »
Just over half of submitted pictures rejected for "quality issues."
Another chunk for Shutterstock then which took all of the last lot after rejection by adobe. One of which has become my new best seller. One of which has won a prize and several of the others have sold a few times.
The quality issue is Adobe.
Don't hesitate to post here the picture (Ai? real photo?) which has won a prize and was rejected by Adobe. No doubt, you will not.
Shutterstock takes EVERYTHING
hahahahaha Adobe are no different. What a pathetic response.
And no I won't stupidly post the photo here so it can be copied and nor will I post the photos that are doing well despite adobe's rejection.
But I'm sure you'll post a photo of your best sellers here to show your confidence in the whole process.
We wait with baited breath 🙄
huh just found another adobe rejection that's a book cover. At least Shutterstock sell even if it's for peanuts it's some peanuts.
Pathetic ? you should calm down your ardor a little. I wanted to suggest that you prove that Adobe's rejection was not legitimate.
If that were true you would have written "Can you post the image to show the rejection is not legitimate" like you manged above. Instead you wrote: "Don't hesitate to post here the picture (Ai? real photo?) which has won a prize and was rejected by Adobe. No doubt, you will not.If you think someone's a liar and imply as much - own it, don't try and crawl out of it just own it.
17
« on: January 16, 2024, 07:44 »
Just over half of submitted pictures rejected for "quality issues."
Another chunk for Shutterstock then which took all of the last lot after rejection by adobe. One of which has become my new best seller. One of which has won a prize and several of the others have sold a few times.
The quality issue is Adobe.
Don't hesitate to post here the picture (Ai? real photo?) which has won a prize and was rejected by Adobe. No doubt, you will not.
Shutterstock takes EVERYTHING
hahahahaha Adobe are no different. What a pathetic response. And no I won't stupidly post the photo here so it can be copied and nor will I post the photos that are doing well despite adobe's rejection. But I'm sure you'll post a photo of your best sellers here to show your confidence in the whole process. We wait with baited breath 🙄 huh just found another adobe rejection that's a book cover. At least Shutterstock sell even if it's for peanuts it's some peanuts.
18
« on: January 16, 2024, 03:47 »
Just over half of submitted pictures rejected for "quality issues."
Another chunk for Shutterstock then which took all of the last lot after rejection by adobe. One of which has become my new best seller. One of which has won a prize and several of the others have sold a few times.
The quality issue is Adobe.
19
« on: January 11, 2024, 02:31 »
The idea is that you cost adobe less money and they make more. Like all companies they are pushing costs onto the clients. The difference with adobe is that they are also pushing the costs onto the staff that don't work for them
20
« on: December 28, 2023, 02:44 »
I now have a banner - up to 8 weeks.
21
« on: December 11, 2023, 08:27 »
Each page has 100 results and in this example you have 4 pages of video results for - Scorpion
Fly. How many pages would you be willing to search through to get the right footage?
Beacuse page 1 of 4 has .... 66% of the results which are not even insects. Birds, fish, food, and dragons. Many are insects which arent a scorpion fly
It is tragic - https://streamable.com/p5rhgo
And that was just the video results.
The search results are actually not that bad. Most of the top results actually feature scorpion flies.
You can filter out the unwanted results by putting your search terms in quotations marks: "scorpion fly". Then you get only 33 results but almost all the results show scorpion flies.
You can also search with the scientific name for the family Panorpidae or the most common genus Panorpa.
And if you search for scorpion fly in images and sort by relevance, the first page shows almost exclusively scorpion flies. If you switch to sort by new, then the first page looks quite different. So the algomrithm actually does a pretty good jobs to show the relevant images first, when sort by relevance.
Oh I know there are tools you can employ to retrieve what you want from the search results but how does a dancer end up there straight off the bat and bare in mind this is niche. It's 4 pages of quite an obscure insect. If you do butterflies by name its pages and still only insects. It shouldn't happen really. I guess it should be caught at review but pfffff they are all human right 🤣
22
« on: December 11, 2023, 05:22 »
When we upload our assets and eventually get them approved and then they enter the catalogues. Users and buyers are at the mercy of "luck" whatever luck is. A.i./algorithms etc. But the reality is quite brutal and this is a simple example. If you search for something A.i. isn't very good at - insects and choose one that is quite common and select video you would expect to get examples of that insect (on this ocassion). Each page has 100 results and in this example you have 4 pages of video results for - Scorpion Fly. How many pages would you be willing to search through to get the right footage? Beacuse page 1 of 4 has .... 66% of the results which are not even insects. Birds, fish, food, and dragons. Many are insects which arent a scorpion fly It is tragic - https://streamable.com/p5rhgoAnd that was just the video results.
23
« on: December 09, 2023, 07:19 »
why do people say this stuff. There is a fresh content tab and filters. It isnt some magical luck of the draw thing.
Actually it is. Will your asset get picked up or not mostly depends on luck, especially lately.
Source: stock contributor since 2009, I spread out assets from my shoots over numerous batches over weeks, and sometimes an asset gets picked up by the search, gets a few initial downloads in the first day, and the propels it further in the search rankings. If you don't get any views/downloads in the first few days of assets being online, it's much less likely it will be picked up. And no, the asset that gets picked up is in no way shape or form superior to the ones that don't get picked up. So yeah it's luck.
I have a particular photo. It has been on page 1 slot 1 for about 2 years and has allegedly never sold. Some times it falls to slot 5 page 1 when new stuff comes in. Then back up it goes. So the algorithm or whatever it is that puts it there isn't by being purchased. In fact I've got about 5 photos on that first page. I think one has ever sold once. Does make you wonder doesn't it. Edit: In that image search there are 3300 images that are similar.
24
« on: December 06, 2023, 09:27 »
Going on 5 weeks now. Is this the new normal? Not seeing the upside
They're already accepting ~200k images per day. Are you sure you want the review process to be faster?
How do you think your image will be found when it's fighting against 100s of millions of old assets in the collection, and 200k that were approved on the same day as yours?
The issue is too low of a rejection rate, not review times.
why do people say this stuff. There is a fresh content tab and filters. It isnt some magical luck of the draw thing. They don't need to reject more or slower, they do desperately need to trawl through all the garbage titles written in no language in particular and nonsese keywords. And allow obvious keywords that they don't. For example "pond, life" for dragonflies which at present they won't unless a pond is present in the photo. Moronic but there it is. Endless examples. That's what helps people's stuff to be found.
25
« on: December 01, 2023, 03:17 »
In my opinion, a much better strategy would be to hold reviewers accountable. When other contributors report stuff like that, the best response isn't "we don't discuss other accounts", it's accepting that it was a mistake to let those images slide through, remove them, and interally look at which reviewer let those images get into the public facing database. Then educate the reviewer so they don't make the same mistake again.
If the same reviewer is later found responsible for other errors in the review process, and they were already educated, then it's time to let the reviewer go. They're causing harm to the company, to the contributors, and to the buyers.
But then again, I'm not the CEO of Adobe and I can only cosplay as one on a small internet forum. Too bad tho.
An excellent suggestion. Finding this stuff to prove a point, proved to be too easy to do. And contributers would probably do it for free for Adobe. Like Alex R used to hunt portfolio thieves for S. Again for free and it became ridiculously easy for him to do. SS response was like Matts - they banned him from the forum. Thieves portfolios sell and make money just like genuine contributers. If Adobe started actually searching and pulling large swathes of rule breaking imagery from their bloated servers - they might hurt the piggy bank and find things they'd rather leave. And I've no doubt their man power is pathetic. They should use A.I. to review their catalogues for duplicates but Matt has said its all human ....... 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 ... ghasp for air .... 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 .... oh boy sorry about that phewww.... anyway yeah if only they could do that instead of using A.I. to create pregnant women with a monkey paw and a hump on their back to get that "wow" factor.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
