|
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 - Uncle Pete
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 197
126
« on: January 17, 2025, 14:43 »
...
For a number of years - since 2018, and then you only needed one approved upload - contributors who sell a reasonable volume of licenses get the additional compensation of an Adobe Subscription. And the low end of the sales required is still extremely small compared to prior years.
...
In the beginning the bonus was based only on numbers of approved assets, and the first time it was 300. I don't remember if it was in 2018 or 2019, but that info can probably be found by looking back in this forum.
Not quite. It was either 300 assets or $500 in sales
https://www.microstockgroup.com/fotolia-com/creative-cloud-giveway-for-adobe-stock-contributors
If you met the $500 test you still had to be an "active" contributor. At that time, active meant have one approved asset added since Jan 1 2018
"The first 2,000 video contributors to have 300 videos approved or with $500 in earnings on video sales with a 50% or higher approval ratio will receive a one year full Creative Cloud membership."
127
« on: January 17, 2025, 14:40 »
How many stopped uploading to Adobe because of ridiculously long waiting times for moderation and large numbers of seemingly random rejections?
I was saving up images, so I could upload in January and have the quota for next year, after it takes 8-12 weeks for reviews, plus the mysterious "Quality Issues". I don't mind too much. I appreciated the gifts, but I think changing the quota without notice is a crappy way to communicate and show some respect for the artists. Will it be 500 next year? Doesn't matter how many downloads or how reliable any of us are, now we're getting into the making numbers, just to make some numbers. So spam up your collections everyone, lots of duplicates and similar.
128
« on: January 17, 2025, 14:32 »
Why would you think he is smarter than us?
I based my opinion on his credentials. About the author: Vadym Nekhai is the former CEO of Depositphotos, where he started as the Chief Marketing Officer at the company in 2012. He served as Vice President of the organization after it was acquired by Vista Print, now known as simply Vista, from 2021 until 2024.I think he might know how the Microstock business operates, from an insider view, knowing the agencies and the competition.
129
« on: January 17, 2025, 14:20 »
LA Times: "Laguna Beach adopted a set of fire-resistant construction standards, developed native brush fuel modification standards and greatly increased the amount of water stored at an elevation where only gravity is required to provide pressure to hydrants.
Our fuel modification efforts are moving too slowly. The brush that surrounds and infiltrates our developed areas is no longer in its natural state. It has become an overgrown source of limitless fuel that can burn entire neighborhoods to the ground. "
The usual answer to this kind of better way to prevent fires, before they are firestorms?
"To the editor: Several people are quoted as saying that poor brush clearance was among the reasons the Palisades fire and others have been so bad.
Although preventing huge firestorms is not as simple as implied, elimination of brush can lead to other major problems. Erosion and landslides that can result from "climate whiplash" also cause tremendous damage.
Without a decrease in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, we can expect more firestorms and more damaging atmospheric rivers. Those who continue to publicly deny the global warming that is caused by burning fossil fuels should help pay for the recovery from this destruction.
Bill Roundy, Orange"
OK lets not talk about the problem, and instead start shouting about nature, climate change and greenhouse gasses. Maybe someone can explain climate whiplash and how that applies to water in elevated places, better fire resistant homes and clearing brush and the fuel for the fires? But mostly this is how things are in California. People don't want to admit that they built their homes in a prairie that for centuries, was open grass and brush, that burned in a natural way, on a regular basis. And they won't admit that they have to prevent fires, instead of just complaining and blaming some outside forces.
The Native Americans were smart enough to build almost all village sites, on the East side of a river, so when the prairie fires came in the Spring, they had a fire break. No I'm not saying that California has that option, but if they know the history and ecology and natural system of the area, they would have planned to prevent these fires, instead of denial and blame.
130
« on: January 16, 2025, 14:39 »
If the merger goes as planned, GETY / SSTK will have 70% of the photo market. Because of the archives and the collections, they will also control some specific images. If they are the biggest and most complete agency, combined, they can also control the prices for their images.
Canva can't offer those images, and the free sites can't either. Some of Adobes images, might be unique as artists have stopped supplying IS and SS.
Interesting post by someone who knows: https://petapixel.com/2025/01/12/stock-photographys-crossroads-can-a-getty-shutterstock-merger-fix-it/
AI: The Elephant in the Room
"To stay relevant, Getty/Shutterstock must find ways to better integrate AI capabilities into their platforms."
"70% of the photo market" Where did you get that number from? Plugged it out of thin air?
And Canva already has all Getty images!
Read the Blog post, I plucked it from there, and it was written by someone closer to the business and probably smarter than everyone in the forum, when it comes to understanding Microstock. I know he's way smarter than I'll ever be. "This merger isnt about ambition; its about survival. Together, Getty and Shutterstock will control an estimated 50-70% of the creative licensing market, but their challenges remain daunting." " An Oligopoly Cemented The stock photography market has long been an oligopoly, and the merger of Getty Images and Shutterstock will only solidify this. The key players remain: Getty Images/Shutterstock (Merged Entity): Combining vast content libraries and operational scale. Adobe Stock: Leveraging the Creative Cloud ecosystem for consistent growth. Canva: While not a traditional competitor, its rise among casual users and SMBs impacts the lower end of the market." I think he's right: " What They Gain: Market Power: Greater leverage with AI companies for licensing deals. Cost Synergies: Potential operational efficiencies. Pricing Control: Ability to stabilize or even raise nano-stock pricing. What They Risk: Debt Overhang: Both companies bring significant financial baggage. Contributor Backlash: Lower royalties and exclusivity demands could alienate creators. Innovation Stagnation: Focus on integration may delay much-needed transformation."
131
« on: January 16, 2025, 14:11 »
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there! 
No Pete, this is not manipulation. I have personally noticed that downloads increase when you dance naked around a public fountain in winter.
I'll submit photos later 
Please don't, just imagining that scene is scaring me. I generally sacrifice chickens, under a Full Moon. (others call it grilling BBQ Wings, but close enough?) I burn offerings to the all powerful and wise God of Microstock, Hephaestus, who is the Greek god of artisans, blacksmiths, carpenters, craftsmen, fire, metallurgy, metalworking, sculpture and volcanoes.  Also covering other options, I celebrate Saturnalia, with a Scotch tasting festival, near the winter solstice. Charms are also something that everyone should have and use, for good luck. The rabbits foot is extremely powerful for more illustration downloads. 
132
« on: January 16, 2025, 13:18 »
1. If Hyperstock had been created, pond5 would not have been sold to shutterstock.
2. Now the question is not about what happened many years ago, but about what to do now.
3. But yes, I see that you like the lack of income on pond5.
1. I see you also have the time machine and predictive crystal ball, that shows what would have happened? 2. What can we do? We don't run the agency. 3. I do? When did I write that?
133
« on: January 16, 2025, 13:08 »
Funny that some people here are fantasizing about excuses for Adobe.
Bottom line is that after years of a minimum upload limit for this bonus they put the bar suddenly a lot higher. And that seems really a business decision to cut costs as much as possible.
It would have been more fair to raise the download limit if in effect they would have had more downloads that year in relation to the previous year. But now it seems they can just cut out a large group that are in effect making money for them and had earned the bonus fair and square.
So yes, not a nice move from Adobe.
I'm not paying for CC in the future. If this plan was to get more of us, who have a free photo editing subscription, to pay, it's not going to change anything for many of us. I appreciated the thought and the free subscription, but Adobe CC photo editing wasn't a necessity.
134
« on: January 16, 2025, 12:55 »
If the merger goes as planned, GETY / SSTK will have 70% of the photo market. Because of the archives and the collections, they will also control some specific images. If they are the biggest and most complete agency, combined, they can also control the prices for their images. Canva can't offer those images, and the free sites can't either. Some of Adobes images, might be unique as artists have stopped supplying IS and SS. Interesting post by someone who knows: https://petapixel.com/2025/01/12/stock-photographys-crossroads-can-a-getty-shutterstock-merger-fix-it/AI: The Elephant in the Room "To stay relevant, Getty/Shutterstock must find ways to better integrate AI capabilities into their platforms."
135
« on: January 16, 2025, 12:46 »
Some drone news:
After updating my DJI app today, I was surprised to discover that, as of January 13, 2025, DJI, the worlds leading drone manufacturer, has officially removed its geo-fencing feature. In this blog post, well dive into the implications of this bold move and what it means for current and future drone pilots.
https://brutallyhonestmicrostock.com/2025/01/15/djis-bold-move-why-the-worlds-leading-drone-maker-removed-geo-fencing/
And the link to the Gatwick Airport shut down. "Photograph: Alexandre Rotenberg/Alamy"  Interesting was, as usual, near the end of the drama, "At 6pm, military trucks arrived at Gatwick with an anti-drone system designed for battlefield operation, and installed it on the roof of the south terminal. This system can track and disable drones; it works by jamming the radio frequency connecting the drone to its controller. At 9.30pm, Gatwicks chief operating officer Chris Woodroofe announced that the airport would remain closed overnight because of new drone sightings. The military system was operational by around 10pm. It did not pick up a single thing." So either the sightings were mistaken ID of drones, or false, or the military equipment, doesn't work?
136
« on: January 15, 2025, 14:53 »
No, they didn't.
To be honest, I don't understand how people come up with such weird conspiracy theories in the first place. It's becoming a habit here.
Since Elan Musk hasn't completely shot up the Shutterstock headquarters with his lasers from space, downloads are completely normal, revenue in January is expectedly poor.
My sales are up and I found one of my images, first in a search, there's obviously some unfair manipulation going on there!
137
« on: January 15, 2025, 14:50 »
So, thanks to the particularly smart members of this forum, I finally read this entire thread.
So, due to the low sales on pond5, I suggest all members of this thread start writing letters to pond5 and asking them to finally launch a project called Hyperstock.
LOL yeah, I sure hope not. We're lucky that it never got past Beta testing. I was sincere when I said that SS and IS have had enough of subscriptions and they have changed their model for the future. Anyone who still sells on SS has seen the tricks that SS pulled, to give us less and how we are seeing almost no subs anymore. 🤞
138
« on: January 15, 2025, 14:09 »
At one time, Pond wanted to create Hyperstock. But many authors began to resent it and Pond abandoned this idea. I think that now Pond can only be saved by its complete transfer to Hyperstock and the introduction of a subscription pricing model. Otherwise, Pond will become an unprofitable asset for Shutterstock and may eventually be liquidated.
Anything is possible, however unlikely and improbable. If I remember right, Hyperstock was beta and never launched. Whether that was because of artist backlash or something else, we'll never know. Seeing how subscriptions have worked and been abandoned by Shutterstock, I'm not going to agree with your prediction for the Pond5 future. It's strange that the idea of creating Hyperstock has never been discussed on this forum before.
That's so you. If you can't find something or don't see it, then it doesn't exist. Your support at P5 isn't the same as everyone else, so you invent your answer, it's been ended and taken over by ss. Now you say we never discussed Hyperstock. https://www.microstockgroup.com/pond5/hyperstock/ Somebody gave you a + for that false claim.
No way, Stoker says we didn't discuss that. You probably invented a time machine, went back and created that whole fake thread. 
139
« on: January 15, 2025, 13:19 »
iStock is paying 15% flat commissions to photo contributors. SS currently is paying 15% to 40%.
But ... the IS percentage is on the selling price of the image, the SS percentage is on the cost of the customer's subscription.
If a customer has a subscription of 100 USD per month for 100 photos and downloads 25 of them, the contributor earns:
Shutterstock
- 100USD/100 photos * 15% = 0.15 cents
Istock
- 100USD/25 photos (those downloaded) *15% = 0.60 cents
Shutterstock knew very well the rate of use of its subscriptions and therefore moved its entire business from on-demand sales to subscriptions. In this way it increased its earnings significantly.
Precisely, that's why I like Istock better and have no problem waiting for a month to see for which amount something was sold and the calculation of the commission. Because their system is much more fair then what SS and AS do, namely giving you commission based on all the possible downloads that the client can do with their subscription.
And that's why we'll make more when SS and IS raise prices, as they are no longer trying to beat each other, by offering buyers the lowest prices. Now they can sell higher priced credit packages to the largest and best image library in the world. We will get 15% of a bigger number.
140
« on: January 15, 2025, 13:07 »
@Uncle Pete
a difficult matter!
If you can't use the name of anything,how does anyone find this content?
it's different to write "in the style of Miyazaki" or "Australian style landscape" as you already know.
but if you can't write tomato because it's not a real tomato,how do you find the AI tomato? 
and the same is also applicable to a name of a city or a country.
why set these limits?
if anyone wants to create a London with 2 Big Ben and insert the name "London", "Big Ben" and "Westminster" in the keywords,what's bad?
it doesn't matter at all because all the content is labeled as AI,so whoever buys it knows that it is AI content.
man has always been looking for new lands to explore,new borders to overcome,new discoveries,see what's on Mars and create gluten-free biscuits!
text to image AIs are simply the answer to a need that is innate in human beings,the need for something different,new.
I didn't mean tomato or cheeseburger and I never suggested that. You know that! But putting Sydney Harbor on an AI image, is irresponsible. Putting Pope Francis on an image is misleading. We can't put down "in the style or" some specific artists name, and shouldn't. because the infringes on the artists known fame and styles. There are rights to personal likeness, which AI or not, are infringing. No all AI images are not marked as AI, and you know that too. Sure thing, make all the fake AI images anyone wants and of things and objects, scenes, mountains, woods, sliced tomatoes, any of that. But specific geographic places and names of a city, or a name of a real person, shouldn't be allowed. Then the fakery is spread, and who's to say that every AI image is also labeled as AI, once someone licenses it and uses it on their website. We can't even get proper credits for our work. What next, fake news and fake editorial images? I'm not against making AI images, I opposed to making AI images that are deception or fakes, being passed off as something real. 
141
« on: January 15, 2025, 12:41 »
I'm really disappointed - I no longer qualify for anything free from Adobe Stock.
Same here, with over 6000 downloads and around 30 added files in 2024 I don't qualify for anything free from Adobe Stock. I only upload stuff that I think will sell - thus I never upload a lot of content and I think with a portfolio of < 1k assets and > 6k downloads I wasn't that wrong in the past.
The new bonus rules really prefer AI spammers. So for this year I might simply upload a ton of ugly LCV cr*p from my phone, just to qualify for the 2026 bonus - if this is what Adobe wants us to do. 
Oh nice how they make these up, without notice and drop the gift on us. It would have been nice to know the targets in advance. Here are the details:
If you had between 350 and 6,999 downloads during the 2024 calendar year, you qualified to receive a complimentary code for a one-year plan for Creative Cloud Photography (20GB), Illustrator, InDesign, Premiere Pro, or After Effects.
If you had 7,000 or more downloads in 2024, you qualified to receive a complimentary code for a one-year plan for an Adobe Creative Cloud All Apps.
Only Contributors active in 2024 are eligible for the opportunity. To be considered active, you must have uploaded and had approved a minimum of 150 new assets.
Please note that video downloads are equal to 3 downloads in consideration of the qualification.
If you are eligible for the bonus opportunity you can expect to see the blue banner in the Contributor Portal with your redemption code on January 14, 2025.Heck, I didn't keep count or try to make a quota. I can understand 350 DLs and being "active", but they changed the rules, without notice. Also they made it harder to get anything approved with the slow reviews and vague rejections for Quality Standards. Downloads aren't a problem, but changing the new files requirement, blind is kind of a slap in the face.
142
« on: January 14, 2025, 12:57 »
Here's another of Sydney from the top of the first page search results.
Since when did Circular Key vanish!
I've posted an actual photograph below where you can see the blatant embarrassing error of this IA image and the equally blatant embarrassing acceptance of this in Adobe Stock's library...
The funny thing is - actually in the submission requirements for "AI" - Adobe actually DOES explicitly state NOT to label "real place names, real landmarks".
So - in this case - it would be the fault of the contributor, so there is a very valid reason for removing that asset.
If they stated "Simulation of Syndey" or "Australian Style Landscape", that would be one thing. But if they are calling it "Sydney", which obviously it is not - then yes, that asset can be deleted/removed under the terms of submission they specified.
Not only should the image be removed the artist should get a warning. If you can't use "In the style of Picasso" or some other artist, why should "Australian Style Landscape" be allowed. No names of real places, no names of real people, no names of artists styles or using a real famous or otherwise, personal likeness, as the basis for any image. Whether people here agree or disagree about AI, as stock or art, I think most of us agree that labeling something AI with real tags, implying it's a real place or person, is supporting fakes and frauds. It's misleading. My thought is that even in the stock industry we are going towards the Cory Doctorow neologism "Enshittification"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification
Not going towards, already there.
143
« on: January 12, 2025, 15:21 »
There won't be any raise for artists even if they triple the licenses price.
Well, that would be assuming they'd cut our already low commissions by another 66%, because if our share stayed the same, we'd get the same 3x increase.
If we get 15% of $1 = $0.15, and they raise prices 3x to $3 for $0.45, (as MicroVet's example). We'll get more. The basic math is unavoidable. I'm not suggesting they will raise prices or raise our commissions, just that as proposed, if they raise prices, we will get paid more at the same 15%. I don't see collection mergers, because of the complications in the different formats and the data. I do see links, ads, and suggestions. Even the idea that one search for all images, is flawed and unlikely, because of the CV for IS and Getty vs the vocabulary allowed on SS. It is possible to have a credit system, credit packs, subscriptions, where images from both/either are offered at the same rate. Content collections, image catalogs, whatever you want to call them, will not be merged, that's my prediction. A crossover offering, best images, portfolio, curated, could be possible.
144
« on: January 10, 2025, 14:39 »
145
« on: January 10, 2025, 14:32 »
I actually took some time and looked into the platform. The web interface doesn't look so bad tbh and it's relatively easy to upload and create designs.
But the creator provision is super small, ranging from 7% to 10%. So you're really getting peanuts for your work, for me personally not worth the time uploading content and managing products.
That's a yes to your not worth the time. 
146
« on: January 10, 2025, 14:29 »
Dear Uncle Pete, you can choose the language on Juniqe.
For example:
www.juniqe.com/uk
www.juniqe.com/de
www.juniqe.com/fr
Thanks for the link, I tried and tried and only found other languages when I clicked from your original link. UK is close enough of a translation for the other English.
147
« on: January 10, 2025, 14:24 »
Another interesting point comes at around 11:35 - an example of a bias in AI generation.
Because AI hasn't had the proper DEI training and just sees everything as just what it is? Let me explain my view. If the AI doesn't give the results that some political viewpoint is expecting, then the AI is broken. Then the programmers will adjust and make things biased to the point of changing reality or denying how things actually are for the majority, instead of the vocal minority. See now everything is OK, because bias, discrimination and prejudice against the majority and the establishment is their version of correct. Sherlock Holmes is not some old white guy, in London in the 1800s. They (note pronoun proper) a black woman, at least her identity is that of a female right now. No wonder kids are confused. A character from some old books and stories, is not a political statement. Huckleberry Finn, discusses important themes like slavery and freedom, but in recent times, it has been banned, removed and restricted, because "use of a racial slur and its depictions of racist attitudes can cause students to feel upset, marginalized, or humiliated and can create an uncomfortable atmosphere in the classroom." The other side isn't without bias and attempting to control and manipulate. The Harry Potter series has been banned or challenged in some schools and libraries due to its depiction of witchcraft, and claims the stories promote disobedience and non-conformity, and perceived unsuitable themes for certain age groups. Oh My God, lets all protect conformity and make kids into little mindless obedient robots. So, that's why AI training and the Woke crowd, turn me off. They are the young people doing the creating and programming. But the other side is just a far off into denial of the real world, in their religious motivations. Given the situation (look at the stock prices of both companies for the last year) it is not a choice but just a matter of surviving regardless their different cultures. This will keep them afloat for a while. Like other people said some small niche companies will survive but there is no room apperently for three big companies (the market is too small). Adobe will let this new venture stay alive because of anti trust legislation so that may in the end be beneficial to us. No lower prices and maybe, really maybe, more money for us.
I'd like to see more money. What big three companies, it's going down to two now. But yes, to the rest of what you wrote. They could just be going along for now, until the legal rights are decided. If buyers are paying for that slop, we can't deny, that's where the agencies will go, to make more sales. You don't go to the customers and tell them what they want, they tell the business, what the market is demanding, and then the businesses provide it.
148
« on: January 10, 2025, 13:50 »
149
« on: January 10, 2025, 13:47 »
Share the link. 
N O !
150
« on: January 10, 2025, 13:17 »
And what of iStock Exclusives?
In theory, they could sell exclusive files on iStock, and all the rest on SS.
In practice, who knows? I've never been able to second-guess what Getty might do next.
Yes, right all around. They could also sell SS on Getty, but they would have to drain the cesspool, remove the stolen content, take out the garbage, find and remove AI, and take out the duplicates, (how would they decide that?) before they could make anything useful, with integrity. If SS can't check for AI, stolen or Dupes, who's going to suddenly spend the time and money, to vet the collection, before it goes up for sale on Getty? That could happen if Getty has an urge to create a curated SS collection, where they just pick and offer only those. It's much cheaper to just add a link on the bottom of the page. The most likely outcome will be the simplest answer. It's a corporate merger not a content merger, they will operate as divisions of the same corporation. They don't have to change what we're paid, as we are already below fair compensation and the uploads keep coming in by the millions. Getty is happy paying us 15% and having a system that's discouraging for people who upload spam or stolen images. Why would they want to change that? As long as they offer growth and hope for gains to investors, the money will flow in, and that's all they care about. We and Microstock are an afterthought, not the main business. I don't know why people can't seem to grasp that. We don't matter. When someones asks, "don't they care about us?" or "if they paid more, they would get better quality" the answer is No, they don't care. They don't care about us personally, they don't care about the crappy AI content that they accept, they don't care about timely or accurate reviews, or quality, they don't care about image theft or duplicates. All they care about is the business, profits and investors. Yeah... 💯 I've never been able to second-guess what Getty might do next.
👍
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... 197
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
