Sorry, you are dealing with this, those canned support responses that don't address the issue are infuriating! If this is definitely in violation of whatever license they are using (providing Shutterstock didn't make some special deal via a loophole in the contract) you may want to look into reporting the app itself to marketplaces distributing it, additionally filing DMCA with the company that makes the app and if no response you can also look into reporting it to whoever is hosting their sales site for the app if they have one.

I think if you upload a zip to Adobe with the EPS and JPG preview and put the same meta data on the JPG file it will pull.  Haven't uploaded in a while so I don't know if it's changed but that used to work for me.

I joined the Adobe Stock Discord a while back (and the ones for Illustrator/Photoshop etc) since I practically live on there, lots of great stuff going on but as a vector artist the content on the Stock server is pretty heavily photo based which makes sense.

If you guys are ever looking to expand it would be really cool to have an official Adobe illustration /  animation stock server. I'm in the process of building a 2D animation community, but it's not stock focused. 

There are lots of specialized content ideas and technical stuff like export settings that would be handy to have an official place to chat about.

Curious how Youtube AdSense earning work for stock videos, do you mean that you've uploaded all your clips to a YouTube channel and you are actually getting consistent views?

Quote from: steheap on November 01, 2020, 22:43

QuoteSteve how in the world do you this every month? Make money.

I guess I am reasonably good at what I do... 

That is for sure, would you say that consistency also lends itself to your success? either as far as upload volume or quality?

I've been licensing images since 2003, I'm pretty clear on the fact that it's a business.  I'm not sure I understand your other posts though, it seems like you are under the impression that Adobe is moving toward a new model that involves paying up front for content.

That isn't necessarily what's being said here.  Even if that were the case I'm not sure I'd see it as good news.  It's highly unlikely any company would be able to pay full time living wages to each artist it gets content from.  Even the amount from this program wouldn't cover most people for a year. For me licensing creative assets is a way to get away from being tied to an employer or a salary anyway.

I think I agree with you about groups in theory, unfortunately that has not worked out very well in the past.

This might be an amazing opportunity for the forty selected artists depending on the exact terms of deal. For the rest of us, I personally think it would be a lot more impactful and meaningful if Adobe used their considerable influence in the industry to work toward preserving the value of creative work in general.  If any company has the position, resources and incentive  to help come up with solutions for the "race to the bottom" in pricing of creative assets it would seem to be Adobe.

Education was mentioned in yesterday's announcement and I would genuinely love to see some sort of plan from Adobe about teaching copyright, IP and valuing your work as an artist. Maybe Adobe could even work with artists from the underrepresented communities to become ambassadors and educators in their local design communities?

I don't want to take away from the good this program will do for those selected and I'm not trying to be dismissive of it, but to me at least it feels awfully empty after yesterday's news, particularly if one isn't eligible to be considered. I'm not even sure I understand who is eligible, the phrase "self-identifying artists and content from underrepresented communities" sounds like vague corporate word salad to be honest. No offense meant, but the language could perhaps be more clear here.

It's good that Adobe is actively working on diversity and inclusion initiatives, but looking long term, what is the benefit of nurturing these new artists and content creators without a viable market for selling art in the future? Considering how much more difficult it has gotten in the last two decades to earn income this way, I truly wonder what it will look like to try to make a living as a creative in 2030, and moves like the free image collection seem to be making that a more remote possibility.

Thanks for the answer Mat, your efforts here and everywhere you communicate truly are appreciated.

You make a fair point about the free subscriptions that are given away, between that and things like the creative residency programs there is definitely a lot that Adobe gives back to the community that you don't see from other companies.

I guess the part that worries me most is with it seeming like every site is moving in the direction of either cheaper images, lower commissions and/or free image sections I worry about being able to pay the other bills even if we manage to earn the software for free.

I'm not totally opposed to the idea of giving some things away, I've done it on my own sites occasionally for promotion, done free projects for charity and even contributed a few times to some open source projects.  Free can be good when done right for sure.

It's just the size and quality of this free collection and the fact that the main exposure of it seems like it will be limited to those artists who are hand picked that makes this feel more like a threat to potential sales than a benefit if that makes sense.  I will be watching for updates though, maybe if promotion of the paid content is worked in more efficiently it will be okay.

Also I'd love to see more details about the plans to educate free image users on licensing content. That sounds like a nice idea but in my experience it's really tough to turn someone looking for free goods into a paying customer without a really clearly defined plan.

In my opinion this is way too many assets at way too high a quality level for a free collection. It would be one thing to offer a much smaller rotating collection of free content meant to showcase as many contributors as possible and actually highlight the paid content.  This just looks like giving up and saying even Adobe apparently can't/won't stand up to the Pixabay crowd.

This line from the FAQ is particularly tone deaf to me:

Why does Adobe Stock offer a free collection? Won't it directly compete with the paid collection?
There is a growing demand for free content.

So what? There are always people who want everything for free. There is a growing demand for free software too, will there be a rotating free app in Creative Cloud each year? Adobe's contributors are also it's customers, and it certainly feels like a slap in the face to people who've paid thousands of dollars for Adobe apps over many years.

I feel a little silly now for singing Adobe's praises so loudly over the last year, and sending all my clients there. I was so pleased with all the open communication, the Discord communities, the webinars, the time and patience Mat spends here answering questions....but a move like this from the last agency I can say I actually trusted is just exhausting and deeply disheartening.

I've patiently explained to people countless times the advantages of properly licensing images from a trusted agency over downloading from the free sites.  This just muddies the waters further for people who think all images should be free in the first place.

It's really generous of you to share this, thank you very much!

Creative Commons are generally free licenses some of which allow redistribution and "re-mixing" of your work so applying them would not be the same as the royalty free or rights managed licenses from the agencies which are much more restrictive.

I agree, I really liked being able to compare multiple years with the quarterly metric for downloads and earnings.

Quote from: whtvr2 on June 16, 2020, 18:58
It is not wise to suggest free sites or free services. No client will ever browse or take serious someone selling work online but not paying for hosting. Plus website developers also need to get jobs and got payed 

I was only suggesting a temporary solution for contributors who might not currently have the time or budget to build a website to get their links out quickly.  As a web designer myself very I'm well aware that people get paid to build sites.

It's a pretty big stretch to say "no client ever" will click on those links. In my experience clients absolutely will click on a link and contact you if they are really interested in your work. 

I just dealt with them to get my portfolio deleted as well.  It took 2 unanswered calls and several emails until someone finally responded.  They said they'd take care of deleting my portfolio but I ended up doing it myself manually image by image.  I'm also not able to update any of my account info there looks like the site is a bit broken.

Quote from: Snow on June 16, 2020, 16:38
Peeps don't forget to add your link in SS profile so people can find your work elsewhere. Also create a gmail (or other email service) address with your real or contributor name to use as contact address.

If you don't have a website for your microstock profile then you can create one for free at Wix. (geez I sound like a commercial)
Any free service will do of course but I took Wix because it seems to be integrated with Shutterstock and since the purpose of this website is to steer away from SS I find this quite amusing 
We are all creatives/designers so it shouldn't be too difficult to set up a quick website.

Also for anyone who doesn't have time or is a little intimidated by setting up an actual site you could go the route of just making yourself a profile page with links to your work on a service like https://about.me/ or https://linktr.ee/ (Both have free versions last I checked.)  They are really easy to set up even with zero tech skills or patience

Steve, I'm curious as to what your aim is here with the devil's advocate position. If not portfolio deactivation, what do you suggest is the most constructive course of action for artists who don't want to accept 10 cent commissions for their work?  I'm not trying to be disrespectful, and I apologize if I've missed your answer to this as there has been so much to follow in recent days, I'm just honestly confused about your stance on this issue.

For what it's worth, I'm not sure what Mark's affiliation is with this plugin, (I've seen him pop up talking about it a few times in the past week so I get the suspicion,) but the CMS Account solution has been around for a quite a while. 

I experimented with them as well as Ktools (same era in the late 00's / early 2010's) before getting heavily involved with Symbistock for a while.  CMS Account support was without question more helpful and responsive vs Ktools in my experience and I think Ktools went out of business shortly after. As far as SEO they were okay but not fabulous when I tried them out vs a regular WordPress eCommerce site.  They all have their pros and cons for sure as self hosted solutions. 

I think anyone who goes down that road ends up looking for someone who can relate to the trials and tribulations of building something like that so maybe that's all Mark is interested in?

Currently I'm rebuilding using Wordpress with a standard e-commerce plugin and some custom development of my own and hoping to get some better results.

I'm always open to chatting with anyone trying to do something similar and can even sometimes be helpful as my background (besides stock illustration,) is in web development & marketing

Symbiostock was a fabulous & ambitious concept but I think as a community we were and are a little too scattered still to make it work.  Maybe some day, fingers crossed!

Good luck to anyone trying to build your own site though, I think personal branding and niche work really is the answer!

I've lost access to my account there and I've been trying to contact them to get in and/or get my portfolio taken down. Seems emails and phone calls are not being answered.  Probably a long shot but If anyone knows of an alternate way to get in touch with the owner I'd be grateful for any advice.

Yep I do, and I also have to file in the US every year. That's partially why I'm closing some old accounts, a site that makes under $100 a year isn't worth the extra paper work unfortunately.

Wondering if anyone else has some experience or advice on this, it's never been an issue with other agencies. I am a US citizen who lives in Canada as a permanent resident but I do not have Canadian citizenship.  I also do not have a US address as I haven't lived there for many years.

On the DepositPhotos tax center I cannot fill out either the W-9 form (the one I should be using as a US citizen) nor the W-8BEN form which they keep telling me to fill out despite that not being correct.

The W-9 form won't let me input a non-US address and the W-8BEN has a citizenship drop down which does not include US citizenship as an option. So it's literally impossible to complete either form on their site with accurate legal information. 

I have been back and forth multiple times with support and they keep telling me to enter my US address, when I tell them I don't have one they say to fill out the W-8BEN, when I tell them I'm not a Canadian citizen they tell me to .....enter my US address....in a never ending loop.

My situation is not all that rare, when a US citizen moves abroad you are a) Still a US citizen b) Not necessarily a citizen of the country you live in and c) Still file taxes with the IRS so I can't be the only one that's ever run into this?

Kind of at the end of my rope I just want to get paid and close the account.

Just had a chance to watch the replay and ended up with a page full of notes! So much great information here and I'm really looking forward to the episode with the search team.  Thanks so much for this Mat!  I think Adobe is really doing a good job of being open and accessible to contributors and it's super refreshing.

This sounds like a great topic, looking forward to it!

Thanks very much for sharing the outcome! 

Flywing gave you the correct answer. I can certainly understand that changes to your workflow are inconvenient, but that's no reason to take your frustration out on someone who has no control of Shutterstock policy and tried to be helpful. 

What you are describing isn't a bug, it's just the way the upload system currently works even if you think it's wrong. There's nothing you can do to get around it except make your artboards bigger as described in both the support article and Flywing's answer above.

I've only recently started uploading again to Adobe so I'm not 100% sure of their keyword policies so I'd be interested in the answer too.  The only thing that I could see maybe possibly being an issue is zoom, zooming, zoom in?  Maybe too many variations of the same word. 

From what you describe they seem relevant hard without seeing the animation and having first-hand policy knowledge.  Maybe Matt with come along and she some light, hope you get it sorted!