I got my 1099 for Adobe Stock; my problem is that they never actually paid me! Why should I pay taxes on my meager earnings if I haven't even been paid by them yet? -- I have small ports at a number of places & don't always meet the payment threshold, even over a year If they are sending a 1099, they should pay out whatever is there at the end of the year! (It can be all electronic at this point, so it's not like it costs them $ to do so.)

(& yes, mine says Fotolia also.)

If you do your accounting by "cash" instead of "accrual", don't worry about reporting it until you actually get it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/10/06/email-phishing-gamer-elderly/

It's an oldie.

It's ok to feed all their stock images to AI to do facial learning and stuff.  Something like that.

In addition, the higher pricing gives the buyer the sense that it is unlikely they will encounter many competitors using that same content in the wild.

Also, we have a pretty good customer service team that will help with research.

https://petapixel.com/2022/01/28/over-80-of-nfts-minted-for-free-on-opensea-were-fake-or-plagiarized/

From what site?

It's crazy.  Nowhere on the site does it actually say what you're "buying".  Not in the terms, the FAQ, the help, or anything.

These responses are not helpful.

Sorry.  You asked, I answered.

So at the moment I can't say to someone with a standard RF license that they aren't allowed to sell an NFT of my work?

Of course you can.  An NFT implies that someone �owns� a digital photo, file or whatever and is transferring ownership to someone else.  These people don�t �own� the work.  You do.  A license doesn�t change that.

I've already made four times as much on AS than SS.

In truly ridiculous SS news, apparently calendar images each year are now off the table because they are "too similar".  So, anyone needing 2022 or years forward will just have to use 2018 or something.

"Our policy for accepting similar content has been continuously evolving, although it is a different year indeed, the images are the same that were submitted previously. We aim to meet the needs of our customers who are looking for diverse content and the needs of our contributors who are producing a variety of images in one shoot. Please allow me to clarify the reason for these rejections.
 
I understand that previously some images were being accepted at a higher rate. Still, since we have updated our review policies, many of the new content uploaded might not be accepted as per the updates. To help you navigate this nuanced policy, we have prepared a Similar Content article. Among these updates, it�s highlighted that many of the rejection�s reasons now include the Similar Content review policy, which has stricter guidelines compared to the previous one we had in place."

When I pointed out the port in the first post to show how dumb this was, ....
"I understand your frustration. The portfolio you have reported had these images approved before the change in the similar content policy. The rules on what is considered to be content that is too similar to accept into our collection have been tightened to meet the ongoing customer demand for fresh content with variety."

Which is why I spend little to no time on SS.

I can�t say they�ve beaten SS, but sales are consistent and while many are at the $.38 minimum, there are a lot for a dollar or three.  Thanks!

� Immediately I saw sales on Adobe Stock for the three non-free images.�

For how much?