Quote from: blvdone on March 22, 2024, 14:41
Finally I cracked above 1,000th because of yesterday's hot sales.  Also it's already the BWE for photo downloads this week.  Nice!!

Very good! Congrats!

Quote from: Faustvasea on March 21, 2024, 22:45

Quote from: blvdone on March 21, 2024, 21:18
Just had a huge day today.  On it's way to BWE for photos on Adobe Stock.  Thank you for your support!!

Was wondering how many photos you have on your port. For me if I sell a file a week, I'm lucky.

Page 1, first post - you can read it there.

- February 2024 was better than shutterstock.
- February 2024 was better than in the two previous years, but worse than January 2024.
- I don't get download stats for February 2024 - so I have no idea how the RPD was.
- I got 4 negative refunds for downloads from Washington on November 11, 12, 13 and 15, 2023 "Premium Access Time Limited" from Washington.

Quote from: Injustice for all on March 19, 2024, 13:05
PNG sell well.

JPEG contain less data than PNG and PNG would be preferable to JPEG if only PNG weren't so heavy and the maximum you can upload to Adobe is 45MB.

I have uploaded png files with 50 megapixels. None of them has more than 25 MB. It is true that the png files are about twice as memory intensive as the jpgs, but 45 MB is actually quite generous.

In February it was $0.12 per image in the portfolio at shutterstock. 1352 images, no videos. It used to be just under $1 per image per month a few years ago. A sad development from the contributor's point of view. Very frustrating!

My motivation to upload anything to shutterstock is in the basement. The same applies to dreamstime and 123rf. Depositphotos is also getting worse and worse.

I can only say that I have never had any problems with a payout at dreamstime. No matter how you feel about the agency - it has always been fair!

Quote from: HalfFull on March 05, 2024, 21:32
Highest position = 97 (last 12 months), annual low of around 900 and currently 337 but improving still. A steady avg of around 400. Lifetime Rank 494. 20k images sole trader.

Nice!!! Congrats for this! 

Quote from: cobalt on March 04, 2024, 10:22
I will check my screenshots from the happy days. That would be really interesting, if you get into the top 1000 the ranking is real?

dec 26 pos 253, dec 28 pos 263

I don't know why I cannot upload my screenshots? I keep getting an error message.

If you are using a newer Mac, screenshots are generated in very high resolution. You then simply have to reduce the size by half. I assume that you can then upload them.

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 03, 2024, 19:41

Quote from: Wilm on March 03, 2024, 18:58

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 03, 2024, 16:46
Weekly Rank: 1,230
Downloads: 306
Total assests: 1,758

For someone with no talent whatsoever  , your performance is and remains absolutely impressive! Congratulations on these figures - that's really very good.
I have fewer pictures in my portfolio, but I'm more than clearly behind you. May I ask where your lifetime ranking is?
I have now slipped to position 2,700 and was once at 1,100 many years ago with a much smaller portfolio. In the meantime, 1,600 contributors have overtaken me. I'm too lazy and I don't seem to have the right touch for successful files anymore.

I've always maintained that it's not about talent or artistry. It's all about engineering and understanding how to use tools efficiently to replicate successful outcomes. 😉

Yes, I know! I remember our discussions. We won't come together on this because I disagree with you - as you know. Many people have technical know-how. But aesthetically useful and marketable results are not based on technology alone. Ultimately, however, it doesn't matter, because for the pure numbers it doesn't matter whether technical or aesthetic means lead to success.

Quote from: Zero Talent on March 03, 2024, 16:46
Weekly Rank: 1,230
Downloads: 306
Total assests: 1,758

For someone with no talent whatsoever  , your performance is and remains absolutely impressive! Congratulations on these figures - that's really very good.
I have fewer pictures in my portfolio, but I'm more than clearly behind you. May I ask where your lifetime ranking is?
I have now slipped to position 2,700 and was once at 1,100 many years ago with a much smaller portfolio. In the meantime, 1,600 contributors have overtaken me. I'm too lazy and I don't seem to have the right touch for successful files anymore.

Quote from: bennu99 on February 27, 2024, 10:01
....speaking of their AI - I think they have a long way to go (taken from facebook post).  https://www.shutterstock.com/search/boyfriend?fbclid=IwAR33O1QGCz2kLRfVIiHLAydACpmAotzqRZP3lHlkmbK5QdbL7SvP3ZJXBKw_aem_AQ7kpL88Fe4monFCVpl0-efUlG-KIi1yYlVLybeHXosKros7lFb1NFsY5YXVWFKztUI&image_type=generated

Fantastic!!! 

Quote from: zi_fi on February 27, 2024, 08:11

Quote from: Wilm on February 25, 2024, 21:09
However, I generally believe that there are indications as to why such purchases - for example via a 30-day free trial - become conspicuous at all.

If the buyer does not search for keywords, but enters the image numbers directly and downloads the images, this is not "normal" search behavior. And if this happens several times in a row, some automated "alarm signals" will probably go off at the agencies - which is understandable.

It's evident that there are certain behaviors that should raise red flags, such as direct downloads using image numbers without keyword searches. However, it's baffling that Adobe either lacks the tracking systems to detect such anomalies or simply chooses not to investigate thoroughly. Opting for account termination as a quick fix is not only lazy but also unjust. Contributors invest significant time and effort into building their portfolios, and they deserve better than arbitrary terminations without proper investigation. Adobe needs to step up and implement robust monitoring systems to ensure fair treatment of its contributors.

I would like add this:

It is not generally suspicious if images are not searched for, but the image numbers are entered and the image is downloaded.

We have searched for images for certain projects often enough and forwarded the image numbers to our customers so that they can buy the images. This is quite a common procedure.

In our case, however, it was always images from a wide variety of contributors. And our customers also bought the images and did not download them via free trial.

In any case, I would very much appreciate it if Mat would take a closer look at your case and give you more specific feedback.

Quote from: cobalt on February 26, 2024, 00:37

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2024, 17:39

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2024, 12:01
From what I understand we always get paid normally if content is bought via free trials.

Which is where the abuse part comes in, some people do make their friends sign up for free trials and buy content. Some criminal gangs might even have a large networks organised this way and make thousands of dollars before Adobe finds them.

Then they steal or create new identities and start again.

Especially in countries where 3000 dollars is worth like 30 000 elsewhere, it is extremely profitable to steal via agencies with endless fake profiles.

In addition they sell their free downloads to other users who can buy much cheaper from then than from Adobe directly.

The problem is real.

But producers should be protected from criminals. There is no way you can protect yourself from abusive downloads.

Why would these gangs or groups target zi_fi, or anyone else not associated, for downloads then, if they have no financial gain in doing that?

I suppose there could be some kind of personal attack or revenge motive to pick someone out to harm their income?

They probably want his content. These gangs also sell batches of stolen content online.
They make money in all ways in this scam.

Yes, that's right, that could of course also be a reason. That would be a double whammy for the OR.

However, I generally believe that there are indications as to why such purchases - for example via a 30-day free trial - become conspicuous at all.

If the buyer does not search for keywords, but enters the image numbers directly and downloads the images, this is not "normal" search behavior. And if this happens several times in a row, some automated "alarm signals" will probably go off at the agencies - which is understandable.

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 25, 2024, 17:39

Quote from: cobalt on February 25, 2024, 12:01
From what I understand we always get paid normally if content is bought via free trials.

Which is where the abuse part comes in, some people do make their friends sign up for free trials and buy content. Some criminal gangs might even have a large networks organised this way and make thousands of dollars before Adobe finds them.

Then they steal or create new identities and start again.

Especially in countries where 3000 dollars is worth like 30 000 elsewhere, it is extremely profitable to steal via agencies with endless fake profiles.

In addition they sell their free downloads to other users who can buy much cheaper from then than from Adobe directly.

The problem is real.

But producers should be protected from criminals. There is no way you can protect yourself from abusive downloads.

I suppose there could be some kind of personal attack or revenge motive to pick someone out to harm their income?

The thought had already crossed my mind, Pete. That's why I asked the OP if you can see the portfolio somewhere.

It would be quite conceivable that someone could initiate something like this to get rid of a competitor with a comparable portfolio.

In the case of the OP, however, I can't judge how many portfolios with similar content exist.

Quote from: zi_fi on February 25, 2024, 08:40


Regarding your concern about conspicuously high numbers of downloads from trial subscriptions, I must clarify that I have never engaged in or encouraged such practices. It is not logical nor ethical to have friends purchase my content to inflate download numbers. I have always operated within the guidelines and ethical standards set forth by Adobe Stock.

Perhaps Mat Hayward can take a look at this if you let him know in a personal message.

There have been contributors in the past - even back in the fotolia days - who manipulated the algorithm with downloads from another account or via "friends". Even fotolia moderators were banned for a longer period of time when this was discovered.

I think that the agencies react very sensitively to this.

Of course, I can't judge what happened in your case. But if you have a conspicuously high number of downloads from people who sign up for a 30-day trial subscription and then don't renew, then this is probably registered automatically.

I've never had this case myself, so I can't say too much about it.

Is it possible to view your portfolio somewhere?

It is absolutely incomprehensible to me - especially in times of ever-improving AI - why newly uploaded images are not compared with images already in the database during the review process. This could be an automated process.

New images (also mirrored) could be checked as easily as with the google reverse image search.

Perhaps there is a reason why not much emphasis is placed on this.

If it is discovered that someone has an account with stolen images, the account will be closed and the money that has not yet been paid out will certainly be withheld. The return of money that has already been paid out may also be demanded. So it's a win-win situation for the agencies because they get the money for selling the images but don't have to pay anything to the contributor.

And the contributor who actually took the image does not receive any compensation anyway.

Conclusion: Accounts with stolen images and videos that are discovered are a lucrative source of income. Therefore, the effort to prevent this is non-existent.

Quote from: angelacat on February 20, 2024, 13:20
Just wondering if anyone has opted out of AI - button looks available but wondering what the consequences would be.

Thanks

I have opted out months ago. I don't know if that has an influence concerning downloads and performance.

Quote from: BigBubba on February 19, 2024, 05:28
20K clips - 280$ so far in February, last year around this time in February it was 3000$+ what's going on?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is indeed more than frightening! Incredible!

Quote from: Uncle Pete on February 15, 2024, 18:04

Quote from: Faustvasea on February 13, 2024, 06:30

Quote from: cobalt on February 13, 2024, 04:42
you can try every genre but still be very selective. especially if you have many agencies to work with.

the 25 image limit will be lifted, it is not a permanenet thing.

the 25 limit meant to expire in March, and I've asked for increase and they have extended till end of the year. No point been there. I've read some other comment on here with other contributor leaving them too.

The iStock upload limit is the same for everyone, or was years ago:

Bronze (500+ DLs): 25
Silver (2,500+ DLs): 30
Gold (10,000+ DLs): 35
Diamond (25,000+ DLs): 50

Where can you see your own status, Pete? I didn't even know that it existed or exists there.

Quote from: DaLiu on February 18, 2024, 12:53
Level 5 on images and Level 3 on videos but for this month I see a decrease in high earnings but records number of downloads.

There was a time when we weren't so far apart in terms of numbers. You've been working hard since then and are obviously being rewarded for it. Congratulations on that and well deserved.

I admit that I wouldn't have thought such an increase as yours was possible. So it's really interesting to read that it's possible.

My personal answer to the question "Is shutterstock dead?" is now yes. Which is also self-inflicted due to a lack of diligence. But since the new income structure, I lack all motivation.

It was a good month for me at istock. Almost as much as in 2022 and significantly more than in January 2023. And almost exactly four times as much revenue as Shutterstock in January.

Quote from: HalfFull on February 06, 2024, 16:46
Just coming back with the response from DP when I asked what had changed. See below, just XXX out the real names. It seems the only change is the payout!

"HI xxxxxxx,

The change is that from now the minimum payout is $25 and not $50, other terms did not change.

Feel free to contact us 24/7 if you have any further questions or require any assistance.

Kind regards,

xxxxxxxxx"

Thank you very much for this information!

Quote from: Noedelhap on February 05, 2024, 21:54

Quote from: Wilm on February 05, 2024, 14:53
I don't remember what was in the old contract, but the following passages, among others, are striking:

Depositphotos may obtain special permission to distribute certain files under the Attributed Free License or another free license. By granting permission, the contributor waives the right to receive compensation for such distribution, which, with few exceptions, will not be credited to the contributor's level.

What is so striking about this one? They won't distribute your files for free without your permission. Almost any agency has a free section, for which you need to give special permission.
If you don't give your permission, you have nothing to fear.

That's right, other agencies also offer a free download of images. But when I read in the same agreement

"...Such agreements may cover various areas of permitted use, including but not limited to the right to create and re-use derivative works based on the Files...and the right to use, integrate and otherwise incorporate the Files for the development and training of algorithms, networks, technologies and solutions." 

and

..."for repeated downloads or repeated use of files by the same third party under the same contract"

then in my opinion this goes far beyond what is offered by other agencies. I admit, however, that I would probably have to critically re-read what is written there in detail about the free licenses.