|
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 - Big Toe
1
« on: May 10, 2025, 05:29 »
---Old Post Alert---- another one has been created for all the Adobe rejections
It's interesting, though, that people already complained about rejections at Fotolia (now Adobe) almost twenty years ago.
2
« on: April 05, 2025, 17:29 »
Interesting.
Anyone here have any experience with sales from Zoonar?
I see they are non exclusive, perhaps I will try.
My experience with them is good. I have regular sales with them. I usually don't earn quite as much with them as with Adobe and Shutterstock, but it is not that far behind and sometimes they outsell one of the two (in most cases Shutterstock. This March sales were unusually good and they outsold both Adobe and Shutterstock. A few things should be noted: In my experience, Zoonar is all about the partners. They sell relatively little directly (although this March was an exception, perhaps it's connected to the relaunch and hopefully a trend). I used to sell mostly via the partner DDP Images, but in recent years, most sales were via the partner Picture Alliance. And even more recenctly, I started to sell editorials via their parter Imago Images. I keyword in German and English for Zoonar, title in German, description both German and Englisch. If you don't provide German keywords, they translate English keywords for their German partners, but I think this can take quite some time and I cannot say anything about the quality, so if possible, I would advise to add German keywords yourself. As far as I can tell, my images are transferred "as is" to DDP Images and Picture Alliance without (or only automatic) changes in the metadata and they are accepted relativly quickly. For others, like Imagebroker or Alamy, where they seem to have to change more, it can take quite a while until they are accepted. I sell mostly German landscapes and landmarks at Zoonar and also some industrial stuff or pictures of wind turbines. My editorial pictures are mostly ships. I suspect that stuff that sells very good at the microstock agencies like lifestyle images or food may not sell just as well at Zoonar, unless perhaps it appeals specifically to the customers of their German partners like Picture Alliance.
3
« on: February 28, 2025, 16:01 »
I searched for "rugs" and got mountains.
http://kinkyspot.com/assets/adobesearch.jpg
Probably because those are rugged landscapes. "Rugged" and "rugs" give the same search result when I search in my portfolio. Any chance you used the keyword rugged for those mountains? If not, perhaps some synonym that caused the search to also show the picture when the user search for rugs or rugged. If you keyword in another language than English, it may have translated one of your keywords to rugged.
4
« on: January 05, 2025, 16:12 »
In fact, this is technically correct, because the AI system is very similar to a Ki image generator. In the end, not a single original pixel of your photo is retained - the image is generated block by block in a different resolution/de-noised/business.
Strictly speaking, it is no longer your image, but a completely generated image to which you no longer have the rights.
Using an AI tool for sharpening certainly does not alter a picture in a way that you lose copyright, strictly speaking or otherwise. That no pixel of the original image may be retained is hardly an argument, because that if true of a plethora of filters or other modification. If you apply a filter to a photo, so that it looks like an impressionist painting with Photoshop, no pixel is the same either. Even if you just make a picture darker or brighter or change the colour temperature, no pixel may be exactly the same afterwards, if you change it enough. But you still have the copyright.
5
« on: December 04, 2024, 15:51 »
anyone holding the same?
I am more of a cat person, so, no.
6
« on: November 21, 2024, 11:58 »
I uploaded what I consider a high commercial value image and it was reviewed and accepted in less than eight hours thus I know what's going on. ... But I now know the real deal...
As single test with a sample size of one is hardly conclusive evidence for anything.
7
« on: October 20, 2024, 13:35 »
a) AHAHAHAH HAHAHAH... Lol - well mr. braniac... Did you even READ the document you posted? I guess it must be "official" since you 'say' so - since you posted this ONE link - apparently it "must" be true? Haha. No. But - I actually DID read it (did you?) And if you go to page 11 of the 23 page document - where they quantify their data sources - they STILL say they do not have complete data (aka inaccurate measuring)... Like RIGHT FROM THEIR OWN DOCUMENT ---> "When this project started in April 2022, almost no country provided systematic information. As of February 2024, 25 of the 42 donor governments now maintain a regularly updated overview website on their military, humanitarian, or financial assistance to Ukraine"... So if that statement is accurate - they don't have complete data! You really should read the documents you try to use to back up your claims.
The most important donors like the USA, Germany or the UK certainly have provided the necessary information. It is very unlikely that some smaller countries make up for the missing 700+ billions from your claim. https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr-erhaelt-18-neue-Leopard-Panzer-article24145229.html
b) Going to your 2nd point - obviously well you don't actually read things, you just 'assume'... I was referring to "a1 abram tanks". But - again, how do you arrive at your statements? Since you seem to be in the 'lemme post a random link to support my statemtent' mode - I'll post a link for you "https://www.newsweek.com/cost-western-battle-tanks-m1-abrams-leopard-2-challenger-2-1776725" - apparently they only cost $6 million each as well... So - someone is pocketing some nice change if you see them going for $30 million.
To my knowledge, there is no tank called "a1 abram". There is an M1 Abrams, but that has not been delivered in large quantities. As I worte, most moder western main battle tank the Ukraine received habe been Leopards, so their price is most significant. The 6 million figure quoted for the Leopard in your link refers to older reburbished models, not brand new ones and as I wrote, they are cheaper, but there is only a very limited supply of them. The M1 Abrams cost 6 million Dollars in 1999, so it is a lot more expensive today. According to Wikipedia, the M1A2 SEP v3 Abrams costs $24 million a piece as of 2022.
8
« on: October 19, 2024, 16:26 »
Another topic on this forum that's going to go nowhere..... 
lol, oh? for the ignorant that want to stick their heads the sand, maybe. anyhoo... good day!
Believing in made up conspiracy theories is hardly the opposite of ignorance.
9
« on: October 19, 2024, 16:23 »
As for Ukraine, I already wrote in another thread (which was deleted by the enemies of democracy) that Ukraine does not need money, Ukraine only needs weapons. As a result, the Democrats spend US taxpayers' money on God knows what, and Ukraine does not receive the weapons it needs. Biden is a friend and partner of putin and the Russians.
Interesting. In "the west", "biden" is portrayed as a "dear friend of ukraine".
Question though. How much "actual" devastation have you actually seen if you live there (as opposed to how the media portrays things?) Also... apparently with canada/the usa/etc - "ukraine" seems to have gotten upwards of a MINIMUM of ONE TRILLION DOLLARS to "fight the war". One TRILLION. With a T. Do you know how many hot dogs you can buy with one TRILLION dollars?
If you just make stuff up, any conclusion drawn from it, is bound to be nonsense. The real amount of help is far lower, less than a third of what you claim: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-support-tracker/Lez say a "tank" costs $5 million (thats for a top notch tank, like lets say a brand spanking new tank like an a1 abrams. You could of course head over to tanks-r-us, and pick up tanks for like $250k a piece, but lets say you want a tank that has the nice leather seats and gps navigator, and you want to give the delivery guy a nice $1 million tip a piece) . That means. There "should" be like 200,000 tanks. Putting that in perspective, according to google, ALL OF RUSSIA only has about 2,000 "decent" tanks. So ukrainian forces would OUTNUMBER russian forces by ONE HUNDRED to 1 in terms of the number of tanks. Ukraine also according to google, has about 38 million people. That means there "should" be a tank for every 200 people... or - if you have a small city (say 500k people) you should see about 2,500 tanks just roaming the streets, like 4-5 tanks for every street corner... Curious - do you see ANYTHING like that...?
So much nonsense, where to begin? Well , first, a top notch tank like the Leopard 2 costs up to 30 Million Euros a piece and most modern tanks the Ukraine received are Leopards. https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Bundeswehr-erhaelt-18-neue-Leopard-Panzer-article24145229.htmlOlder model that are refurbished cost less, but there is only a limited supply of them. Even brand new tank cannot be produced at any number, because the capacity to do so is just not there. Then, of course, the war help for the Ukraine has of course not spent entirely on tank, quite the contrary. The Ukraine has received all kind of stuff, like air defense system, missiles, artillery, ammunition and much more. And, of course, you do not usually see the tanks the Ukraine did receive roaming the cities, because what would be the sense of that? They are at or near the front or held back as reserve.
11
« on: September 10, 2024, 09:02 »
But your quotation explained "how much your images are seen" , not your stats and with that your Adobe contributor position.
Why should we care about our stats and our Adobe contributor position, unless they influence the search position of our images, or in other words, how much our images are seen?
12
« on: August 22, 2024, 13:20 »
How difficult can it be to write an algorithm with a few adjustable parameters so the queue is always at maximum two weeks or whatever their desired target range is depending on the content?
I think the problem is that they are just overwhelmed with AI content and no shuffling around of resources between different queues is going to solve this problem. They very likely would have to expand the available resources. They may be reluctant to do this, because they do not know how long the current influx will remain at this level. Or perhaps they are working on tools that allow the help of AI with reviewing AI content (and possibly other content).
13
« on: July 05, 2024, 06:56 »
Perhaps nobody included Pixta in their this month. There are a number of agencies with the rating zero, so it seems the voters have made no (or very little) money with them this month, so I doubt Pixta would have been excluding due to low earnings. Two people seem to have included Canstockphoto in their vote this month..
14
« on: April 22, 2024, 16:41 »
but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing
Being nitpicky, and IANAL, maybe they're banking on 'permanance':
Under section 59(1) of the 1965 Act on Copyright and Related Rights (Gesetz ber Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte) (UrhG), it is permitted to "reproduce, distribute and communicate to the public, by means of painting, drawing, photography, or cinematography, works located permanently in public streets, ways, or public open spaces".
I have no idea. It's a can of worms.
According to Wikimedia:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Germany#Freedom_of_panorama
It's the sort of stuff that keeps lawyers in champagne, and scares the rest of us witless if we think about it for long enough.
No, the freedom of panorama (Panoramafreiheit) has nothing to do with the limits of editorial usage of photos, but is about commercial use. It means that the commercial use photos of buildings and pieces of art permanently located in a public space is not restricted by the protection of a buildings architecture or the copyright of a piece of art, like a statue. The commercial use can be prohibited due to other laws, though, for example, you cannot use a picture of a Mac Donalds restaurant commercially, because the golden M is protected as a trademark. The limits for editorial use are far wider. For example, pictures of the Wrapped Reichstag cannot be used commercially, because it was only wrapped temporarily, but photos of it could still be used editorially. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrapped_Reichstag
15
« on: April 21, 2024, 14:30 »
I could be wrong, but this just smells bad of frivolous lawsuit and something other than, illegal image use, or copyright infringing for showing the cover of a magazine, as an incidental part of a broader scene.
.
I am not so sure about that. Bild is frequently involved in lawsuits. They should have a bunch of lawyers working for them, who are experienced enough not to start a frivolous lawsuit, without any chance of success. Also, Bild as a newspaper uses editorial photos themselves all the time. They would hurt themselves if they helped set a precedence restriciting the use of editorial photos. My guess is that there may have been some photos where it is at least not absurd to assume that they might violate Bild's rights. Alamy may then have deleted all images featuring Bild as precautionary measure, even though probably only some of them have been a problem and are now trying to collect the money for the lawsuit from all the people whose photos have been deleted. This could probably successfully be contested in court, but who is going to sue them over 20 or even 100 or 200 Pounds or Euros? It is really hard to say without knowing more about what the lawsuit is actually about.
16
« on: March 27, 2024, 15:04 »
I've already clarified that these characters are not AI generated. I hired an artist to make me specific designs in high resolution with clean lines (which AI generated ones have a problem making... not to mention it's hard to make specific character design and posture you want)
I do also make AI generated images, but I always tick the box that are AI generated.
Ok, sorry, then I misunderstood you. I wonder whether the high resolution and clean lines are that important, though, if the character lacks details like mouth or nose. At least I can see neither.
17
« on: March 27, 2024, 12:44 »
Funny you ask... because there were many images and videos I've uploaded that I have no clue why would they be used and they have sold anyways.
It can happen, but I still think that a picture with a useful concept has a better chance of selling.
Concerning this picture: There are alot of little things that dsiturb me a bit about it. Not a lot of the picture is sharp, the girls or women somehow seem to be hovering over these plates or tiles and the proportions seem a bit weird. They miss a clearly defined mouth or nose and the breasts are overemphasized. The hands are weird.
Character has been used multiple times as animation and a part of an image in the past and has sold multiple times... so I doubt any of this would now matter. Now when I made figures of them they found a "problem"?
The image in question is AI generated, isn't it? My understanding is that when Adobe started accepting AI images, they accepted almost everything, even images with obvious flaws. Enough examples of that have been posted in this forum. Now they are swamped with mass produced AI images and can afford to be more selective or I should perhaps say that they cannot afford not to be more selective and images that would have been accepted a few months ago are now rejected.
18
« on: March 25, 2024, 15:51 »
Funny you ask... because there were many images and videos I've uploaded that I have no clue why would they be used and they have sold anyways. It can happen, but I still think that a picture with a useful concept has a better chance of selling. Concerning this picture: There are alot of little things that dsiturb me a bit about it. Not a lot of the picture is sharp, the girls or women somehow seem to be hovering over these plates or tiles and the proportions seem a bit weird. They miss a clearly defined mouth or nose and the breasts are overemphasized. The hands are weird.
19
« on: March 21, 2024, 15:07 »
Maybe gone fishing?
Or they are playing with toys in the attic.
20
« on: March 16, 2024, 08:52 »
so, first all the AI rants about it killing sales on AS, now attacking SS because they DON't accept AI??
It is not necessarily the same people who are complaining about the two things. Someone who does not do AI may complain about AI taking away sales at Adobe, while someone who does AI may complain about Shutterstock not accepting AI.
21
« on: February 26, 2024, 14:17 »
Editorial images are images that can only used for editorial uses, like for example to illustrate a newspaper article and must not be used for advertisment. They also should NOT be altered in a way that compromises their editorial value
I bet that's what you meant? 
Yes, thanks, that is indeed what I meant, I amended my post accordingly.
22
« on: February 25, 2024, 21:08 »
I know people here care and we're at the mercy of the agencies, but if the customers go to Adobe, and SS has much more profitable business gains in AI, news, or whatever else they own and do, they won't care about a division that's losing money. If it's too expensive to operate and unprofitable, they could shut down stock photos, as a cost cutting, expense reduction, initiative.
What kind of business do they have that is not dependend on the stock photo business? When they shut down the stock photo business, the AI licencing business goes away as well. They may survive stagnation or even decline in the stock photo business, but without stock images (and videos etc.), they have no AI business.
23
« on: February 25, 2024, 13:51 »
...
There's still space for real and editorial, that AI can't make...
depends what you mean by editorial - for AS it's anything that needs a model release, even if it's not newsworthy - eg generic people in an office - here AI is an easy alternative
Editorial images are images that can only used for editorial uses, like for example to illustrate a newspaper article and must not be used for advertisment. They also should not be altered in a way that compromises their editorial value Generic people in an office with model releases are not editorial content. Where did you get the notion that for Adobe every image with people that need a model release is editorial?
24
« on: February 23, 2024, 10:06 »
Good news again but my last year bonus plan is already finished, I can't edit any photos in Lightroom right now, does I need to wait the next bonus code to work again ? Im confused.
The new code should already be there, if you qualified.
25
« on: February 23, 2024, 08:11 »
The easiest tool for copying is not ai but a normal camera.
In fact it is usually a lot faster to copy a bestselling image by just taking a similar picture.
It really depends on what is depicted in the bestseller. It is not so easy to copy a picture of a tropical beach with palm trees or of an iceberg, unless you somewhere near them or travel there anyway. Also customers and clients, if they really want to save money, they can just take pictures with their iphones. Including things like wood backgrounds, green grass and sky etc...a lot of the content that is ultrageneric is very, very easy to take yourself.
Even images of stuff that is seemingly available everywhere are no always that easy to copy. For example really clear blue sky with a nice cloud distribution does not occur as often as you might think. And if you want a specific type of clouds like cirrus clouds, you may have to wait a long time until you get an opportunity to get a really nice picture.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
