Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 10, 2025, 13:50

Quote from: stoker2014 on January 10, 2025, 13:47

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 10, 2025, 13:47

Quote from: stoker2014 on January 10, 2025, 13:36

Share the link.   

N O !

Honest, why don't you just ask him? 👌

He doesn't show me his work. 

Did you write him and ask?

I'm sorry, but it's not up to me or someone else to link to his portfolio if he doesn't want that.

I can promise you though, that I just looked and he does have 1,888 images on SS. Just like he says. If you believe that number of images, is what makes sales. I have 5546 on SS and Zero makes more in a week, than I make in a year. Some people who do this as a hobby are much better and more serious at producing quality. I know I'm not. 



Do your own thing.

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. 

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 10, 2025, 13:47

Quote from: stoker2014 on January 10, 2025, 13:36

Share the link.   

N O !

Honest, why don't you just ask him? 👌

Quote from: Uncle Pete on January 06, 2025, 12:17

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.

👍

I always thought we were being lied to, by SS mostly, when they talked about the potential market and gains, from all the buyers that they hadn't made into customers. The 1.4 million in the world, is probably a stagnant or declining number. AI, free, pick something, it doesn't matter. The fact is, the numbers are declining.

Old data, but I don't see anything that would change the number, as people who worked Microstock, have left, and new people, with the get rich with AI and stealing, might have increased. 2018 Shutterstock, contributors with over 1,000 images. 17,877 Yet we heard and read about the millions of contributors. People signed up, people left. 35,000 is a nice number, for the top, and that doesn't mean active accounts, just accounts that are still open on SS, Adobe or iStock.

How many people are exclusive on IS? The rest of the images are likely to be the same as what SS has. The exception is, SS people who left when the new plan was introduced and SS contributors who don't bother with iStock because it's too difficult to add new work. The difference might just come down to, how many exclusives does IS have, and the rest are mostly the same images.

To end some of the rumors and speculation, here's the deal and the offer:

As per the deal, Shutterstock shareholders can elect to receive either $28.84870 per share in cash, or 13.67237 shares of Getty Images, or a mix of 9.17 shares of Getty Images plus $9.50 in cash for each Shutterstock share they own.

Based on the common shares outstanding as of the signing date, the total consideration payable by Getty Images would consist of $331 million in cash and 319.4 million shares of Getty Images.

At the close of the deal, the combined company will be 54.7 percent owned by Getty Images stockholders and 45.3 percent owned by Shutterstock stockholders.

Anyone buying SSTK at $30 is going to get $28.85 back per share, which doesn't make sense on the surface. However, if they take the 13.67 shares of GETY and it goes up, they could be earning much more. I'll show the numbers, as of today, and at the low end. Every share of SSTK at $30, if converted to 13.67 shares of GETY, at the low value of $2.50 would be worth $34.18 instead of $30. (I won't be calculating the split with the shares and money)

If someone buys SSTK at $30 a share they made $6 a share more than the cash buyout offer. Round numbers, thank you.

Members of the SSTK BOD will be on the board of GETY. This is a merger, not a take over or buyout.

Now about our future. What will the future bring? Who the heck knows. Things could improve or go down the sewer and get worse than ever. They could end up the same. I'm not counting on anything happening that will make us all more money, and if I had to bet, I'd say, we'll all make less. But how or what or what's going to happen, is just wild guessing, until the merger is approved and completed and the board gets together and figures out, what will make the new corporation the most money.

You can bet it's not going to be, by giving us a raise. On the more positive side, if we sell more, because of this, then we'll make more.

Back to the first line of this post. If the market is limited and the shares of that market are divided by SSTK, GETY and ADBE, (or PA News) then they are just moving the same buyers from one place to another, and not creating new business. Investors want growth and diversification. This merger is consolidation.

Oh one more thing.



None of the big three needs to buy any of the dregs and bottom feeders. They will go out of business and are insignificant as competition, if they stay open for business, through the next few years.

Pepsi. Coke, and Unilever are dominant. Coke is the smallest of those three in total sales size, because Unilever is more diversified. Market Share and dollars, those three are roughly 90% of all beverage sales in the world. Sure they want more, but back to Stock Photos. Getty/Shutterstock and Adobe are going to control the majority of all stock photo sales in the world, after this deal.

Istock has nowhere written that you can't improve the quality of images and videos with Topaz Ai tools, upscaling or smoother slow motion, etc. And I guess the same is true for other agencies if they want better quality images. These Ai tools also help a lot for animation graphic designers because they have less work to do with renders, etc.

Stock agencies are more interested in whether there are image elements from MidJourney etc. in the images they submit. Such Ai generators are of no interest to me for commercial use.

Sure makes sense, doesn't that?

However, ... if you paste an AI-generated image (Image A) over an unedited image (Image B) in Photoshop, flatten it, and save the result, Image B�s EXIF metadata will not retain or include any metadata from Image A. I think it will have NO data from image A, except the pixels copied. Basta. All the info, in the EXIF or out of it, will be the one Image B had from the beginning, except "edited in Photoshop" will be added almost for sure.

It's NOT in the EXIF or usual metadata. From what I've found the code is embedded in the image itself.

"When an image is created or edited using C2PA-compatible software, a set of cryptographically signed metadata is embedded directly into the image file. Content: This metadata includes information such as the creation time, the software used, and any edits made to the image."

Copy and paste into a different or new image, does not erase this tracking.

Firefly if you open an image in a text editor. This is not in the EXIF section.



C2PA

https://c2pa.org/

"The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) addresses the prevalence of misleading information online through the development of technical standards for certifying the source and history (or provenance) of media content. C2PA is a Joint Development Foundation project, formed through an alliance between Adobe, Arm, Intel, Microsoft and Truepic."

For normal photos I process with an old ps elements version that doesn't have modern ai tools.

I hope that version stays available for a long time.

But next generation cameras will be using ai integrated into their software.

What happens then?

The latest version of Elements 2025, and the 2024 version is not available any longer, has a license that expires. "The license is for a full 3-year term, with no monthly or annual recurring subscription fees required. The license is non-renewing � it expires 3 years after redemption, at which time the Editor will no longer be accessible, but the Organiser will continue to be accessible indefinitely."

Yes, I use Elements too. I have Photoshop, Illustrator and Lightroom CC, but I still prefer Elements.

Quote from: odesigns on January 05, 2025, 09:50

Maybe strip the meta or exif data before submitting.

Removing the corresponding metadata (Exif tag �Software used�) could work.
Here is a screenshot of our own Zoom software where you can see that Topaz leaves an entry that is possibly recognised by IStock and is considered AI-generated.

Right on the Zoom software.

Some of the AI software, and I don't know to what extent now, I haven't look recently, embeds text code in the images data, that is NOT in the EXIF or other metadata. Wiping the EXIF does not remove that. It's not that easy.

Quote from: Pacesetter on January 04, 2025, 19:07

Should this proceed, it would appear the microstock industry battle lines are being drawn up into two with one being the conglomerate of iStock / Shutterstock and all its marketplaces and the other Adobe Stock.

I'm not a trader so have little understanding of it but wondering why Shutterstock would want to do this merger with iStock when they would be merging with a company that has a lot lower share price (currently GETY at $2.39 and SSTK at $31.47)?

For starters Getty has over 78 million share and SSTK as 35 million shares thus double the amount of SS.

Yes, and I wrote "Getty has 3 times the corporate value of SS, roughly. 3 Billion vs 1 Billion. Getty has double the stock value of SSTK. " That's why.

I don't really want to see the merger and I don't know if SSTK actually wants to merge, but it's the natural progression of a boom market. Many companies enter, they take profits, then there's a sorting out as the small ones get bought up or go out of business. There usually end up being 2 or 3 major providers that end up on top and some smaller ones that have specialized markets that survive in their own area.

I think of the computer games business when home computers and PCs first became popular. Companies founded on one product or a line of similar games. The single game companies, got bought out and merged into the big ones, or the smaller companies, disappeared. Look at who's left, and makes games and entertainment for Xbox and the rest of the consoles.

Here's something about Microstock. Pretty much all the same images, from all the same artists and sources are available on all the major agency sites. There's no reason, except price, for buyers to go to more than one place. If the agency they use, has the types of images that they use, that's the one they will buy from. The second reason might be choice, and who has the most images. Small agencies, have neither, in most instances. The small agencies can't survive against the big agency competition, that exists on volume with a smaller profit margin.

I still don't understand how so many small agencies are still in business. My only explanation is, they are paying artists so little, that there's still enough money to run the agency. Once there's not enough profit and the expenses exceed the income, they will disappear in a blink.

Seeking Alpha incorrectly says that Getty went public in 2008 - they were bought by Hellman & Friedman in 2008 and taken private.

Getty was brought back on the market through a SPAC, IPO in July 2022. Investors bought in at $10 a share.



"Deliberations are ongoing and Getty could choose not to pursue a deal, the report added." I don't trust much of this as anything but unconfirmed rumors. Maybe a pump and dump.

Exploring A Merger, which is a proposal from Getty.

https://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/getty-images-and-shutterstock-are-reportedly-'exploring-a-merger'/

I didnt really upgrade for that reason, it was time to upgrade my (mainly still photography) kit and at this point everything does 4k anyway.  All the drones, phones, mirrorless and action cams.

So effectively the "upgrade" was free. 

I wouldnt say its worth upgrading to 4k specifically to make 4k videos though.  That wouldnt be good value.  The vast majority of sales are still HD (Blackbox mentions similar in its FAQs).

Just from comments like yours and so many others here, it seems that HD is alive and well, which supports your opinion that, upgrading just for the sake of making 4k is not necessary.

On my side of that, even if I have 4k available, I'm working back into the old backups, that I never edited or uploaded, because I skipped video, and now the older scenes and ideas, aren't DOA. I've been saving some new as FullHD instead of bothering to make them 4k.

I don't agree. I personally know a few folks with small portfolio's that generate this income. Most of their images are of very high commercial value and are best sellers on all the major MS companies (i.e., Adobe, SS and iStock). Is there a pattern or type of image that sells best? Seems to be in the high volume areas like Christmas or nature (Flowers) or Homes. I knew one person (they are a realtor) that shoot nothing but very high quality interiors and make a lot of $$$$. Many folks, including myself, do not shot interiors very well compared to the high end pro's. I know one person that does Christmas only and they sell a lot!    Yeah, having more volume will get you more sales but not in a predictable ratio. I know one person that shots everything (average looking images) and they have like 50,000 images but generate less than $3,000 a month.

Not to degrade the survey but under 250 people, is a small sample, from the tens of thousands of people who do or try to make money from Microstock. Since the participation was by choice, just like here, some people may not be motivated to participate.

"People, who �survive� and learn - grow more �organically� later (as shown in the more �even� bottom rows). People, who give up and abandon it, make it only to statistics, such as this chart has to offer."

True but another way to view that is, people who succeed stay and those who don't, move on to something else. I don't want to label that as Giving Up or Abandoning, when it's plain and simple business sense. Work for money or work for nothing? People who survive are doing so because they are good enough and smart and work hard. Success breeds success.

Once against we come to the debate, more images, more images, more money, or better images, find open needs and make more money. Of course I am biased, because I believe that Niche is the same as Research before creating. Easiest way to put that is, don't make the most images don't just copy and make the most popular historically. Niche is the same as Find a needed subject, style, area, opportunity to create.

Last of all, unnecessary to conclude or have a survey tell me this. Hard work pays off. Of course the people who work hardest, the most hours, and make the most, will continue to work hard and make the most. Also the people who work the smartest will make more. And in a similar way, people who have access to a niche or a special area of interest, or find their success in a specific area, will continue to make more.

More images, does not equal more money, unless the images are suitable and in demand. More images is just a number. More sales are more money. Unless someone does this for entertainment or bragging rights, the bottom line is, making money, not RPD, views, likes, rank or anything else. "How big is your Microstock portfolio", died ages ago.