|
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 - dirkr
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 56
1
« on: June 26, 2025, 01:13 »
2
« on: June 13, 2023, 10:14 »
Now, the rejections on Adobe get ridiculous. I had two photos of Cartagena (townhall and Roman theatre) rejected because they are too similar to previously submitted photos in my portfolio. I have never been to Cartagena before, so these two are my first photos of Cartagena ever submitted. In my portfolio of 2500 images I have 8 pics of town halls of several cities. Does this rejection reason mean that the townhall of city A is too similar to the townhall of city B? And I am not allowed to submit photos of townhalls of different cities? What worries me, people get their account closed because of similarity. So, when I submit a further townhall from another city I will risk to get my account closed? I dont understand these rejection rules and how a reviewer (AI?) can think the townhall of city A is the same as of city B.
Had something similar last week. 8 of 10 rejected for being "too similar". One of them a wildlife image of a bird, never in my life had taken a photo of that species before. And it explicitly says too similar to other images in your portfolio, not too similar to others on the site. Obviously something is broken, but Adobe won't admit it...
3
« on: June 07, 2023, 02:10 »
Try using FastStone image viewer ( https://www.faststone.org/) instead. It's free and has better features than the file explorer. Don't know about Panasonic Raw files, but it works well for Canon Raw files, that don't show in the explorer.
4
« on: February 03, 2023, 12:10 »
Thanks Mat and Adobe, very happy about this! And just in time before my current (complimentary) subscription runs out 
5
« on: January 31, 2023, 02:42 »
They could have easily licensed files for training, paid for it and gotten beautiful images without a watermark.
...
It is a solvable problem. they need to license files properly and when they make people pay to create files for commercial use, make sure the remixed pixels only come from licensed files.
if it's so solvable why have none of the critics actually proposed how such a system might work?
- how do you find out who owns the rights to each image?
- how do you contact the owners, if any?
- how do you track owners' responses? ie, how do you create a database of artists? attaching a copyright doesn't usually include contact info, and few images even have that minimal information.
- how much should be paid to artists?
- how are payments calculated? per image at tiny fractions of pennies?
- how is payment made with knowing details such as paypal, bank acct or physical address? will a bank process checks for < a penny?
if you're going to complain and allege criminal liability you need to at least make a minimal effort to present a solution than can actually be discussed otherwise it's just more (redundant) hot air adding nothing to a conversation. and it is th e responsibility of the plaintiff to prove they have a case with hard evidence of wrongdoing
Serious? I've heard rumours that there are companies (called stock agencies) who are in the business of selling licenses of images. The seem to have solved the problem of identifying and paying respective image owners. So how about starting the whole thing not by just scraping the internet to create an image database? But yes, that would have cost money... It's so much easier to just do the illegal (?) thing and after the fact just say "oh, it's so impossible to track down all those copyright owners, sorry..."
6
« on: October 25, 2022, 10:32 »
Re Opt-out: If you look at the FAQ they published ( https://support.submit.shutterstock.com/s/article/Shutterstock-ai-and-Computer-Vision-Contributor-FAQ?language=en_US), it says at the bottom of the page: "Can I opt out of having my content included in future datasets? Yes, in the coming months we will be adding an option in the contributor account settings that will allow you to opt out of having your content included in future datasets. " Which also means, they have already sold these "datasets" (i.e. content including metadata) in the past, without any agreement of the affected contributors. They also say "Shutterstock maintains an internal database of all assets used in all datasets that have been created since the launch of this product, so we can compensate our contributors accordingly.", but - obviously - contributors will not be notified if their "assets" habe been included. Typical Shutterstock move. I would expect the compensation to be a (very low) token amount that doesn't add up to much... So glad that I have deactivated my "assets" after their commission cut. Although, who says they didn't include deactivated images?
7
« on: October 13, 2022, 08:51 »
Also, as far as I understand, the video in the free collection is not removed from the sale. Well, Adobe basically chooses what has not been sold even once in the last 12 months.
A free collection is generally incomprehensible to anyone, I dont think that all buyers will run there, many have bought and will continue to buy. I doubt that the video in the portfolio will even be marked somehow, like don't buy it, go and download it for free.
You're wrong. At least that is how it works for photos: If a photo is in the free collection, any customer can download it for free (for the period of one year), and there is not even the option to pay for it.
8
« on: July 05, 2022, 10:29 »
I posted the same thing in the Alamy forum.
Reply from Alamy:
" Hi All,
To update on the above, the calculations should include distribution sales.
We're working on this our end, to ensure that this is correct for all accounts and that no-one is out of pocket.
Thanks,
Alamy "
Maybe they should have told that the person answering my first email...
But I am relieved that it is just an error and not a policy...
9
« on: July 04, 2022, 06:59 »
It's getting worse with Alamy.
Not only did I receive a number of sinlge penny "sales" at the end of June.
Alamy also decided to downgrade me to silver.
But my total (gross) sales amount was clearly above $250 from July 1, 2021 to June 30, 2022 (it was $427,63, according to their statistics).
I wrote to them asking them to correct that error.
Now I got the following response:
"Sorry in the delay in getting back to you. The calculations do not include distribution sales as they are not direct to Alamys site. So, you have made less than $250 overall from July 2021 to July 2022. However, if you made more than $250 in this year you will go back to Alamy Gold. "
Well, I disagree.
The contract talks about "license fees", not making any distinction between direct sales and distribution sales.
Here the exact wording from the contract:
12.12 At the end of each Revenue Year if your total License Fees for that year, net of any refunds:
12.12.1 are less than $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will automatically switch to Alamy Silver as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table; or
12.12.2 are greater than or equal to $250 then the Alamy Commission for sales of your Content in the following Revenue Year will remain on Alamy Gold for that year, as outlined in the Alamy Commission Table.
Of course I complained again, now let's wait for their response.
I think the contract is pretty clear, and their argumentation about distribution sales not being included does not hold up legally.
Anybody else with the same issue?
10
« on: June 22, 2022, 01:27 »
Just tested it with some images. My experience is similar to what Jo Ann wrote. There are very few useful additions to what I already have in the keywords, many irrelevant suggestions and several that are plain wrong.
Example for wildlife (bird) images: Although the AI detects and repeats the exact species in the image (as keyworded by myself) with both common and scientific names, it also adds several other bird species, which are completely wrong. That leads to massive spamming and frustrated customers.
Another example: an image of the cathedral in Erfurt, Germany, gets Prague as keyword suggestion.
Looks to me like the "a" part in "AI" works fine, but the "i" needs a lot of improvement...
11
« on: April 28, 2022, 02:02 »
It will be interesting to see if and how the Digital Service Act decided by the EU a few days ago will impact stock agencies. While I certainly don't understand all the details, one of the points in this legislation is to make online marketplaces responsible for fake/stolen goods sold on their platforms. This may be applicable for stock agencies as well, and could make shutterstock's current behavior clearly illegal in the EU. More details on the Digital Service Act: https://ec.europa.eu/info/digital-services-act-ensuring-safe-and-accountable-online-environment_enStill needs time to be implemented in local law of the EU member states, but it could provide better protection of our work in the future...
12
« on: April 17, 2022, 15:43 »
I've had sales like that before, as low as $0,12.
These have been credit sales (XS size, so one credit, and at 25% royalty for a level 0 image = never sold before).
It seems that there are some highly discounted credits out there so we might end up getting such low returns.
But it's been very rare cases, less than a handfull in the last few years.
13
« on: February 11, 2022, 02:10 »
Great analysis, as always.
One comment to the numbers in your chart: You have the numbers Shutterstock reports as "cost of revenue" marked as royalties.
As I understand it, this number ("cost of revenue") contains the royalties paid out, but also other items. I have not found any information to separate those items.
That means, the real royalties will be (much?) lower.
14
« on: February 07, 2022, 12:32 »
Thanks a lot, can I install on my desktop and laptop or only on one computer?
In general, only two systems and both must be run by only you and only one at a time.
I don't know how that would work for a couple or any similar living arrangement, but the idea is, you can't run a business and share the software. There are probably exceptions.
In the past when I had multiple computers, if I added a new laptop, for example, then I'd have to deactivate the license on the old laptop. As that works out, not creative cloud licenses for Elements, as I upgrade and buy a new version, the old one stays on the older two computers. One laptop, old desktop run version 7, newer laptop and another, have version 10, and the newest laptop and computer are on Elements 2020.
Anyway, CC is supposed to limit a license to two computer, only one running at a time. For more you can activate and deactivate systems, which does not mean you have to uninstall and re-install. Just deactivate.
https://helpx.adobe.com/download-install/kb/activate-deactivate-products.html
I am not an Adobe expert, but from my own experience it works a little different than you described. For reference, I do have the photography plan (Lightroom and Photoshop), don't know if it works the same for the other apps. I have the software installed on three computers, two desktops (mine and my wife's) plus one laptop, (and I am sure more would be possible) and I can run it on any two in parallel. If I want to run it on the third one, I first have to deactivate one of the other two (which you can easily do via your Adobe account on the Adobe website, so no need to have physical access to the machine you deactivate it on).
15
« on: February 05, 2022, 05:58 »
I don't know how to move my Nik collection "filters" over to the new version. May not be possible.
If you're on windows (don't know about Mac): - there is a"plugins" folder in the photoshop folder (of your old photosshop version) on your system drive (something like C:\Program Files\Adobe\Adobe Photoshop 2022\Plug-ins) - in there is a subfolder "google" (-> that contains the NIK filters) - simply copy that subfolder with all its contents in the plugins folder of your new photoshop installation NIK filters should be there after your next start of PS.
16
« on: January 12, 2022, 12:34 »
They changed that.
What it says on my statement (and I recall that is also what was in their changed terms):
- sale: 0.15
- Alamy distribution commission 60% of net: 0.05
- 40% distributor commission: 0.06
Only the order of the last two lines is confusing, as they first deduct the distributor commission and then take their own commission (60% of net, which ends up as 36% of the gross value).
So with distribution sales you end up with 24% of the gross value.
And in this case their 60% of net would be 60% of 0.09 = 0.054, but they did deduct 0.05, so they did round in our favour.
Not that it matters much, they should simply not allow sales at these low values.
Oh, so my modern math isn't quite right? Even though the numbers add up? And that's the way they show it on my balance sheet?
31 May 2021 Sale 2BC2K81 Sale 28.73
31 May 2021 Alamy Distribution Commission 2BC2K81 30% 8.62
31 May 2021 Distributor Commission 2BC2K81 40% Distributor Commission 11.49
8.62 + 11.49 = $20.11
Net revenue sales report
Sale Deduction Due
28.73 -20.11 8.62
That sure looks like Alamy 30%, Distributor 40% and I get 30% ?
What am I doing wrong?
That was before the contract change. Can't remember exactly at what date they changed the contract, it was around middle of the year. Everything on my account balance up to early June looks like you describe it (40% distributor, 30% Alamy, 30% for me). The next distributor sale I got was on August 31, there it says what I wrote above (40% distributor, 60% of net Alamy, rest =24% for me).
17
« on: January 12, 2022, 11:53 »
They changed that.
What it says on my statement (and I recall that is also what was in their changed terms):
- sale: 0.15
- Alamy distribution commission 60% of net: 0.05
- 40% distributor commission: 0.06
Only the order of the last two lines is confusing, as they first deduct the distributor commission and then take their own commission (60% of net, which ends up as 36% of the gross value).
So with distribution sales you end up with 24% of the gross value.
And in this case their 60% of net would be 60% of 0.09 = 0.054, but they did deduct 0.05, so they did round in our favour.
Not that it matters much, they should simply not allow sales at these low values.
18
« on: January 11, 2022, 17:28 »
In my case they are clearly labelled as distribution sales (had four of them on Dec 30/31).
Either mine was not a distributor sale or Alamy is disregarding the opt-out. I opted out of all distributor sales last April yet still had a $0.15 sale to China on 30 Dec with (unspecified) $0.11 deduction.
Wether it was a distributor sale or not you will see in your account balance (did they deduct a distribution commission?). A possible explanation (just guessing) why some people get these sales although they opted out of distribution last year: It could be that this distributor only reports sales on a yearly basis to Alamy (why else would all these sales appear at year end?). Therfore sales could be from dates before the opt out...
19
« on: January 11, 2022, 12:50 »
In my case they are clearly labelled as distribution sales (had four of them on Dec 30/31).
I did look at my sales numbers from last year, and (although there were these tiny sales at the end of the year) distribution sales make up 55% of my gross revenue at Alamy (and 44% of my net revenue).
I had four sales last year with a gross revenue above 100$, three of them via distributors.
For now I will not opt out of distribution sales, as much as I dislike selling for pennies...
20
« on: December 14, 2021, 10:05 »
Hi Mat,
thanks for the quick feedback.
As I thought, we should not use or own images. Thanks for the confirmation.
Dirk
21
« on: December 14, 2021, 09:00 »
Well, if you ask me, they don't need to fix anything...
As long as royalties are not lower than the usual subscription fee (and in my case they were not lower) that's fine for me.
And if they don't mind if we download our own images (and get paid for it....). I just doubt that this is meant to be ok...
Sorry, I misunderstood how payments are calculated. Thought it was a percentage of subscription fee.
That wasn't quite clear for me as well from Mat's answer. But what I see from the real life example looks quite good, if it is to stay that way: Huge number of potential customers (everyone with an Adobe software subscription). No additional cost for them, so probably a lot will "buy". "Normal" subscription royalties for us. And Adobe could really do it that way (better than the competition) because they can write the costs off as marketing expense for their software...
22
« on: December 14, 2021, 08:40 »
Hi Mat,
some questions I have:
- Creative Cloud Express seems to be included in the PS/Lightroom subscription I have.
- This allows me to create something and include images - both from the free collection and from the paid collection - without further payment.
- If I use one of my own images (from the paid collection), downloading the design made in Creative Cloud Express leads directly to a sale (for the minimum amount, in my case 0.36) on Adobe Stock.
Do I understand this correctly? Anyone with an Adobe subscription has full access to all Adobe Stock images (via Creative Cloud Express) without additional payment?
And any usage of an image via this way results in a "custom" sale at the minimum royalty?
So what if I do that with my own images? Am I in conflict with the terms of my Adobe Stock agreement? Do I get into trouble for downloading my own images?
I just tried it by putting four of my images, one free and three paid, into one design and downloading it. Immediately I saw sales on Adobe Stock for the three non-free images...
I don't want my account blocked for something like that, so it would be good to know the official way to deal with this (e.g. never use your own images in Creative Cloud Express...)
thanks!
Wow, this need fixing immediately, especially as it seems we will be splitting percentages of a subscription fee.
Well, if you ask me, they don't need to fix anything... As long as royalties are not lower than the usual subscription fee (and in my case they were not lower) that's fine for me. And if they don't mind if we download our own images (and get paid for it....). I just doubt that this is meant to be ok...
23
« on: December 14, 2021, 08:36 »
Sales were for the minimum amount, in my case 0.36, labeled as "custom".
24
« on: December 14, 2021, 06:36 »
Hi Mat,
some questions I have:
- Creative Cloud Express seems to be included in the PS/Lightroom subscription I have.
- This allows me to create something and include images - both from the free collection and from the paid collection - without further payment.
- If I use one of my own images (from the paid collection), downloading the design made in Creative Cloud Express leads directly to a sale (for the minimum amount, in my case 0.36) on Adobe Stock.
Do I understand this correctly? Anyone with an Adobe subscription has full access to all Adobe Stock images (via Creative Cloud Express) without additional payment?
And any usage of an image via this way results in a "custom" sale at the minimum royalty?
So what if I do that with my own images? Am I in conflict with the terms of my Adobe Stock agreement? Do I get into trouble for downloading my own images?
I just tried it by putting four of my images, one free and three paid, into one design and downloading it. Immediately I saw sales on Adobe Stock for the three non-free images...
I don't want my account blocked for something like that, so it would be good to know the official way to deal with this (e.g. never use your own images in Creative Cloud Express...)
thanks!
25
« on: November 18, 2021, 11:16 »
So if clients are so much interested in behaving ethically correct, does this also extend to payments?
Do they ask for minimum prices and royalties, so that the (hopefully diverse and inlcusive enough) crowd of photographers can afford to continue to take photos and sell them?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 56
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
