endless hordes uploading, working for nothing and train their competitor (ai).
why shold adobe treat them like professionell business partners, come on

QuoteSee, at least in Germany this would actually be a case of editorial content that is not allowed.  I see a lot of editorial content like this on all kinds of stock sites, but at least here, you are only allowed to photograph people without their consent for editorial use images if they are either not the main subject of an image (for example a city scene full of people or a historic building, but there are people in front of it), or if they take part in an event of public interest like a demonstration.

exact,
told this before,
but what was meant as a friendly advice,
was understood as a personal attac here ...

but still the problem with the newspaper example is missing

...any claim that the Content or Metadata infringes ...

and that for there is editorial.
of course you cant offer everything under editorial,
but in case of the newspaper-rack the contributor likely did nothing wrong,
and must not be charged (it doesnt matter whoever wins that lawsuit)



If alamy gets away with this,
contributors have to delete all their editorial content,
to avoid possible horror bills in further cases

QuoteI multiplied 6050 images x a charge to the OP of £11.43

yes, and i concluded if there were only one newspaperrack image then
->   £69k figure for legal costs to date would be devided by 1
     =  £69,151.50 for the contributor

Thank you!

If  'Sell for editorial only'-checkbox was checked than thats quite crazy in this case.

+ One have to assume that others likely also can have success with a claim.

So what about  £69,151.50 is on one image?

This needs instant clarification.
Alamy contributors seem to be INSECURE TO OFFER EDITORIAL CONTENT from now

Please let me have a question JustAnImage:

Did you set a checkmark on - i dont yave a signed property release 
and checked for edttorial only ?


and for all:
what about the case: bild is restricting freedom of press-
if a newspaper have a crazy headline - this can be news

told this since ever,
theres is only one reason customers buying content:
they need it.
But its useless here, its an army of hobbyists,
paying for get their stuff used

in short, as soon as "this thing" is trained one will get 0,00000000...
same like it was with enough images video etc

Ps: may i ask what you define with good money and do you know
    how often and how many images are used and where the outlet goes?

-there must be an opt out
-and in case, like at adobe - an undone and unlearn

it would be absurd getting some ridiculous compensation
for training final enemy,  rich companies cash cow,
with ones hard work

What do you mean with "unlike the rest of the industry which just stealing images to train their machines" ?

Contributors at adobe have no choice.
Ah yes, one can delete portfolio, ok, really?

-if your content is used to train an AI model, it may not be possible to make the AI forget any learnings from your item.

-according to your wiki-list i dont wrote something wrong
-btw the pic is allready displayed nearly worldwide

but its not that simple like just the list - editorial rules (this is not a editorial shot anyway)
->as im not into editorial better ask a professional
also consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation

note: just really interested in the news stand case!
      and wanted to leave something useful for exchange-
      and not any lecturing
     
yes the multiple posts are unhappy, will edit if i have time.

image in the link is a nogo (imho)
people as main subject, no news content, father with minor in swimwear-
you are not allowed to even display this in the internet in europe.
No newspaper would dare to print this (and if, dont forget they have a legal department)

As for VIPs maybe, but arent their kids protected?

.

i meant the news stand

"Had them not been deleted / managed to recover, I would have marked them as "editorial only"

you would had marked them, but have not because the images were deleted and recovered,
did i get this rhight?

dont always agree on your editorial statements
(esp. with recognizable people + non matter of public concern (and data privacy concerns))

but in this case (unless shots were on non-public ground) i cant see the problem

did you ticked theres property and you dont have a release
+ sell for editorial only ?

would you like to provide some more information for readers here
to avoid a maybe unseen mistake?

thank you!

Simple.
Copyright owners have to be asked for agreement
BEFORE the use of ai training.

looks like my guess wasnt totally off

Quotei have no clue about all this ai,
but for me it looks like results are generated (stolen)

from existing keyworded work - without consent, compensation and regard of copyright

i have no clue about all this ai,
but for me it looks like results are generated (stolen)

from existing keyworded work - without consent, compensation and regard of copyright

no way a cgi can have the idea of dof, light etc

QuoteHow many people have E&O Insurance in the Microstock business?

i guess not many, but lets say you missed a pattern, in the end you pay the bill.
you have signed this

QuoteI already have Internet and cameras and lenses, that if I already took and edited a photo for some other agency, then uploading to more places, is = Free Money. The work is done.

if you upload you lose a lot because you further devalue prices-> other agencies will also follow down
if you upload your computer + router needs at last lets say 200W/h
if you upload you spend time

thats the opposite of free,
dont feel offended, its just my honest opinion.

Quotefree money

even if you work for 0/hour there are costs for internet electricity equipment
insurance for copyright infringements etc, just to name a few
its your money that gets tossed

i strongly advise you a business consultant!

QuoteIn my experience, turning off my portfolio on SS (or leaving my work there) didn't affect my sales on Adobe (or any other agency). Different clients, different preferences.

thats just lame thinking.

If all turn off portfolio, clients move over in a day.

But its pointless argueing here on msg...

it would not be wise to focus on companies that only lowering royalties and never will cover production costs

especially  big clients are able to pay a ridiculous low 33, 66, 99 licence

Not long ago, alamy was imho one of the best,
now i get 0,02 for exclusive hq images

Always got a professional reply in a working day,
now no replying at all.

ALAMY DRIVING HULL LOSS

ALAMY forcing me to delete portfolio

Quotekiss of death

lets hope this ...

nobody can produce content for 0,1 flatrate - not even in cheapest places

lol...

agencies must be stupid not to further decrease your royalties to zero